[ad_1]
Abstract
Transnational Corporations (TNCs) have become great global players with significant economic and political power, often operating in several jurisdictions at once and playing a dominant economic and political role. While bringing development and modernization, numerous ones have come to be associated with human rights violations, especially where legal mechanisms are weak. The human rights obligations of TNCs are discussed in this paper by way of an analysis of their organizational features—e.g., decentralized management, profit maximization strategies, and regulatory arbitrage—and how these renders them accountable. It discusses existing voluntary norms like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and evaluates new efforts at formulating binding international legal norms. The research favors stronger regulatory frameworks that place direct obligations on corporations and bridge the accountability gap, so that economic globalization need not come at the cost of basic human rights.
In the age of globalization, transnational corporations have emerged as some of the most powerful actors shaping economies, societies and environments, across the international system. Operating multiple jurisdictions, TNCs possess resources and influence that often surpass those of many nation states. Their economic activities from resource extraction and manufacturing to services and technology -have so many impacts not only in markets but also on human rights, however while states are traditionally viewed as primary duty bearers under
international human right law, TNCs occupy an ambiguous and often contested position within this framework.
Growing power and influence of transnational corporations around the world has made it important to questions what responsibilities they have when it becomes to human rights Traditionally it has been the job of government to protect and uphold human rights. However, because TNCs operate across many different countries, there are often gaps in laws and enforcement which leaves people and communities affected by the actions without proper help and justice.
To deal with these problems, the international community has created several guidelines and standards, the most important being the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). These documents explain what is expected from corporations regarding human rights. However, since these guidelines are not legally binding at the international level, and because national laws are often inconsistent or weak, real accountability and justice for victims remain difficult to achieve. international human right law, TNCs occupy an ambiguous and often contested position within this framework.
Growing power and influence of transnational corporations around the world has made it important to questions what responsibilities they have when it becomes to human rights Traditionally it has been the job of government to protect and uphold human rights. However, because TNCs operate across many different countries, there are often gaps in laws and enforcement which leaves people and communities affected by the actions without proper help and justice.
To deal with these problems, the international community has created several guidelines and standards, the most important being the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). These documents explain what is expected from corporations regarding human rights. However, since these guidelines are not legally binding at the international level, and because national laws are often inconsistent or weak, real accountability and justice for victims remain difficult to achieve.
Key Characteristics of TNCs
Transnational corporations exhibit a distinct set of characteristics that differentiate them from traditional multinational enterprises. Their globalized operations and decentralized structures significantly impact economic, social and environmental landscapes across jurisdiction. The following are principal features of TNCs:
GLOBAL PRESENCE
TNCs establish subsidiaries joint ventures or acquire existing firms in multiple countries. thereby extending their operational footprint and influence beyond their home states. Their dispersed management system is one of the defining traits of multinational companies (TNCS). Unlike conventional multinational companies which usually run with a strong centralized decision-making process based at the corporate headquarters, TNCs give its subsidiaries in various regions of the world.
Decentralized Management:
Foreign subsidiaries of TNCs often exercise independent authority in areas such as research and development (R&D), marketing, production strategies, and even human resource management. By empowering regional units with decision-making capabilities, TNCs enhance their ability to tailor products, services, and business practices to fit the cultural, economic, and regulatory contexts of each host country. For example, a TNC operating in Asia might develop entirely different marketing strategies compared to its operations in Europe, taking into account distinct consumer behaviours and preferences.
Decentralization also fosters innovation at multiple levels within the corporate structure. Local units, being closer to specific market trends and consumer expectations, can propose modifications or entirely new products that better align with local demand. This responsiveness not only increases market share but also strengthens brand loyalty across different regions. Furthermore, in competitive industries such as technology or pharmaceuticals, decentralized R&D teams accelerate innovation by allowing experimentation across various regional hubs.
However, while decentralization offers significant advantages, it also presents challenges. It may lead to inconsistencies in corporate practices, compliance difficulties, and potential conflicts between global corporate values and local business practices. Managing the delicate balance between granting autonomy and maintaining a coherent global strategy remains one of the most complex tasks for TNC leadership. Nevertheless, the decentralized model largely contributes to the agility, resilience, and expansive reach that define TNC success in the contemporary globalized economy.
RESOURCE OPTIMIZATION
Transnational Corporations (TNCs) locate their production facilities and service operations in areas that provide comparative economic benefits. These benefits usually involve inexpensive labour, favourable regulatory circumstances, and vast supply of raw resources. Although this approach ensures maximum efficiency and least operational expenses, it frequently happens without due consideration of the social, economic, and industrial ramifications incurred by
the host country. Offshoring production can result in domestic employment loss, wage suppression, and weakening of local industrial bases. Additionally, this optimization could be at the expense of short-term advantages over long-term sustainable development, thereby compromising corporate accountability in reconciling efficiency with equity and moral business conduct.
Profit Maximization
The main driver of TNCs is profit maximization. In contrast to companies that reconcile fiscal returns with public interest, TNCs are often completely fixated on shareholder profit. This goal for optimal profitability can lead to actions that have detrimental repercussions on host societies, local economies, and employees. For example, cost-cutting could result in pay suppression, terrible labour practices, and inadequate reinvestment in the surrounding sector. The profit-first mentality may also encourage TNCs to disregard social or environmental damage, especially in regions where regulation is minimal. Consequently, TNCs’ conventional business model poses ethical issues regarding their accountabilities and compatibility of their aims with universal norms of human rights.
Tax Avoidance Practices
TNCs often implement complicated legal and financial mechanisms for lowering their taxation across the globe. Mechanisms like transfer pricing, intellectual property licensing, and base erosion let businesses allocate their revenues to locations with low or no corporate taxes. Although frequently valid, these tactics take advantage of gaps in foreign taxation and deny both host and home nations valuable public money. These behaviours make it impossible for governments to fund critical public services such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure. The manipulation of tax liabilities by TNCs also works against the global drive toward fair taxation and needs a more united international structure to assure corporate contribution to public well-being.
Labor Exploitation
Because of their cross-border operations, TNCs tend to exploit varying levels of labour standards and enforcement between countries. They can place their production in countries where labour legislation is weak or inadequately enforced, allowing them to engage in exploitative conditions including low salaries, excessive working hours, denial of benefits, and hazardous working conditions. This “race to the bottom” in labour standards is disproportionately experienced by disadvantaged populations, particularly women and migrant workers. The lack of accountability systems in host nations tends to leave impacted workers with little alternatives for redress. As a result, while TNCs enjoy reduced costs of operation, their actions can perpetuate systematic labour exploitation and human rights abuses.
Environmental Impact
TNC operations can have significant environmental repercussions, particularly in poor nations with limited environmental standards. Operations including exploitation of resources, mass production, and industrial agriculture lead to pollution, deforestation, destruction of habitats, and greenhouse gasses. Environmental devastation tends to be externalized so that the costs and effects fall on the local community in terms of lost biodiversity, damaged air and water quality, and ill health. TNC environmental efforts highlight the mismatch between regulatory compliance and incentives for understanding how corporations might prefer economic efficiency above environmental sustainability. This raises the urge for greater international environmental governance and corporate accountability measures to ensure resource use in a responsible manner.
Political Influence
TNCs wield considerable financial and lobbying muscle to have large inputs in domestic and international policymaking. Through sponsoring think tanks, backing political campaigns, and behind-the-scenes lobbying, TNCs tend to win positive legislation, regulatory exemption, and trade benefits. This influence can degrade democratic processes and exclude the opinions of lesser players, such as labour unions, civic society, and indigenous peoples. In weaker institutions, corporate power can even result in regulatory capture. The capability of TNCs to influence policy decisions in their direction, at times in contradiction to public interest or human rights safeguards, causes severe difficulties for global governance and accountability.
Case studies and Challenges related to transnational corporations and human rights obligations
Transnational corporations (TNCs) have a big impact on human rights, environmental conditions, and labour standards in the areas where they operate because of their vast economic clout and global presence. However, they are frequently beyond the regulatory authorities’ effective reach due to their intricate structures and multi-jurisdictional operations. This examines significant case studies that demonstrate the threats transnational corporations (TNCs) pose to human rights and examines the more general institutional and legal problems related to holding these companies responsible that are as follows
Case study 1
Rana Plaza case, 2013 Bangladesh
Rana Plaza was a building consisting of multiple clothing factories located in Dhaka, Workers at the garment factory manufactured items for major fashion outlets including Benetton, Bon Marché, The Children’s Place, Joe Fresh, Mango, Matalan and Primark. The lower portions of the building also contained shops, a bank, and some apartments. The factory was reported to have cracks in the walls and there had been many warnings that it was unsafe, yet employees were still forced to go to work, regardless. The Rana Plaza building on April 24, 2013, in Dhaka, Bangladesh collapsed which stands as one of the deadliest industrial disasters in modern history. The multi-story building, which housed several garment factories, retail shops, and a bank, crumbled within minutes, killing more than 1,100 people and injuring over 2,500 Most of the victims were female garment workers, many of whom were young women earning minimum wages in unsafe working conditions. This tragedy became a powerful symbol of the human cost of fast fashion and the systemic failures in global supply chains dominated by transnational corporations (TNCs). The Rana Plaza tragedy’s moral and legal ramifications revealed serious weaknesses in global corporate accountability systems. Some companies, such as Primark and H&M, acted quickly to provide compensation to victims’ relatives and survivors, while others postponed or rejected accountability, claiming they had no direct agreements with the factories in question, For example, Walmart asserted that its supplier had subcontracted without authorization and that it had not approved production in Rana Plaza. This approach exposed a significant weakness in the administration of global supply chains: TNCs can take advantage of cheap labour by relying on subcontracting without taking moral or legal responsibility for working conditions. It was challenging to assign blame and enforce safety regulations due to the opaque supply chain.
The Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety and the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh are two significant international initiatives that were started in response to public outcry and growing pressure from labour rights organizations. More than 200 international retailers and brands joined the Accord, which mandated that businesses pay for safety upgrades, factory inspections, and training initiatives. The Accord featured enforceable commitments, public disclosure of inspection results, and active trade union participation, in contrast to earlier CSR initiatives. In contrast, the Alliance, led by North American brands such as Walmart and Gap, was a voluntary agreement with limited union involvement and fewer binding obligations. In conclusion, The Rana Plaza tragedy brought to light the systemic inequities present in international supply networks as well as the transnational firms’ systematic disregard for workers’ rights. It highlighted the negative effects of uncontrolled subcontracting, opaque supply chains, and inadequate legal safeguards in host nations. The story is a stark reminder of the human cost of low-priced labour and the pressing need for
corporate responsibility on a worldwide scale.
Case study 2
Coca cola in Colombia
Serious accusations have been made against The Coca-Cola Company for its activities in Colombia, especially in relation to how it handles trade unionists. Coca-Cola’s Colombian bottling affiliates, specifically Bebidas y Alimentos and Panamco, have been accused of participating in a campaign of violence, threats, and intimidation against union leaders connected to the food and beverage workers’ union SINALTRAINAL, according to reports and lawsuits brought by labour unions (Gill, 2009). These charges include the dismantling of union activity at bottling companies and the use of paramilitary assassination squads to silence labor organizers. According to reports, between 1990 and 2002, at least nine union leaders connected to Coca-Cola’s activities in Colombia were killed, and numerous others faced threats of death, forced relocation, and harassment.
Under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), which allows foreign nationals to pursue civil lawsuits in U.S. courts for violations of international law, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the United States in 2001. Coca-Cola’s U.S.-based corporate parent was held accountable for the human rights violations carried out by its Colombian subsidiaries and contractors, according to the 2006 case Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co. But in the end, the case was dropped. The court determined that there was not enough proof to show that the alleged violations were directly related to or under the operational direction of Coca-Cola’s headquarters.
This case demonstrates how difficult it is to hold multinational firms responsible for violations of human rights committed by its affiliates overseas. Global corporations’ intricate organizational structures, which include legally separate subsidiaries, frequently protect parent companies from accountability. The Coca-Cola case serves as an example of the challenge of piercing the corporate veil and establishing jurisdiction and causality in transnational litigation involving labor rights violations and corporate culpability in violence, despite compelling circumstantial claims and global outrage.
Challenges in Ensuring the Human rights Accountability
1. Jurisdictional and legal Fragmentation
The fact that transnational companies (TNCs) operate in several different legal jurisdictions frequently makes it more difficult to seek effective legal redress for violations of human rights. There is no all-inclusive international legal framework that can reliably decide cases involving corporate human rights breaches, and legal systems differ greatly between nations. Statutes of limitations, lack of standing, or jurisdictional restrictions in foreign courts are examples of procedural obstacles that victims seeking justice may encounter. Furthermore, impacted people and communities are frequently discouraged from pursuing legal action due to the language and financial difficulties of pursuing cross-border litigation.
2. Corporate Veil and Limited Liability
Parent businesses can be regarded as different legal entities from their subsidiaries thanks to the corporate separate legal personality theory. As a result, even when parent companies have substantial operational control, they are usually immune from legal responsibility for violations of human rights by their overseas subsidiaries or contractors. The corporate veil prevents plaintiffs from holding the parent firm liable under either local or international law unless they can demonstrate direct involvement, control, or carelessness on their part.
3. Inadequate Enforcement Systems
Regulatory bodies may not have the authority, resources, or independence to adequately enforce human rights standards in many poor nations where transnational corporations conduct business. Because they frequently rely on foreign direct investment for their economic survival, governments may be reluctant to punish or prosecute corporate actors for fear of discouraging investment. This regulatory flaw creates a situation where human rights abuses can continue with little to no legal repercussions.
4. Initiatives for Corporate Responsibility Are Voluntary
Despite being widely accepted, international frameworks like the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) are nonetheless non-binding. Although they lack legal enforcement mechanisms, these soft law tools promote corporate respect for human rights. Their effectiveness is limited by their reliance on public reporting and
company goodwill, particularly when businesses operate in environments with little to no external scrutiny.
5. Corporate Responsibility Initiatives Are Voluntary
Even though they are generally recognized, international frameworks such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises are not legally obligatory. These soft law techniques encourage corporate respect for human rights notwithstanding the absence of legal enforcement procedures Their dependence on corporate goodwill and public reporting limits their efficacy, especially in situations where corporations function in settings with little to no external oversight.
Emerging legal and policy Responses
A variety of legislative and regulatory initiatives have surfaced to improve corporate accountability for violations of human rights as the shortcomings of voluntary frameworks and feeble enforcement mechanisms become more apparent.
This includes
1. Human Rights Due Diligence Requirement
The implementation of required Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) laws at the national level is among the most important recent advances. The first of its sort was France’s Duty of Vigilance Law, which was passed in 2017. Large French corporations are required to publish and put into effect vigilance plans that detect environmental and human rights concerns in their supplier chains, subsidiaries, and activities. Noncompliance may result in civil liability. In response, Germany enacted the Supply Chain Due Diligence law, which requires big businesses to keep an eye on and handle human rights threats in both direct and indirect suppliers. These laws establish a precedent for other jurisdictions, including possible EU-wide legislation, and represent a paradigm shift from soft law norms to enforceable requirements. Mandatory HRDD is a step toward increased responsibility and openness in international corporate activities, even though implementation and enforcement still face obstacles.
2. Human Rights and Business Treaty
The United Nations Human Rights Council began drafting a legally enforceable international convention on business and human rights in 2014 after realizing the shortcomings of voluntary frameworks. Establishing worldwide duties on governments and businesses to stop and address human rights abuses connected to corporate operations is the goal of the proposed treaty. Adoption would bolster extraterritorial jurisdiction, impose legal obligations on parent firms for the conduct of supply chains and subsidiaries, and establish international enforcement and cooperation mechanisms (Deva & Bilchitz, 2017). Political differences and opposition from certain states and corporate lobbyists have slowed progress, but the treaty debate has sparked conversations about corporate responsibility worldwide and brought attention to how urgent it is to close governance gaps.
3. Initiatives with Multiple Stakeholders
In order to promote ethical labour and commercial practices, corporations, civil society organizations, and occasionally governments come together through multi stakeholder initiatives like the Fair Labor Association, the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), and the Global Reporting Initiative These platforms usually create codes of conduct, carry out audits, and provide certification programs with the goal of raising standards and transparency in supply chains and business operations. Although MSIs have been essential in raising awareness and developing capacity, their efficacy is constrained by their non-binding nature and dependence on voluntary corporate participation. Critics contend that MSIs can
serve more as public relations strategies than as actual change-making processes in the absence of legal enforcement.
4. Litigation Strategy
Affected communities and civil society organizations have increasingly resorted to strategic litigation in the absence of sufficient remedies in host nations. These lawsuits are frequently brought under domestic tort law or transnational statutes like the U.S. Alien Tort Statute (ATS) in the home nations of transnational corporations (TNCs), especially in North America and Europe. Notable cases include the Okapi v. Shell ruling from the UK Supreme Court in 2021, which gave Nigerian plaintiffs the right to sue Shell’s parent corporation in the UK for environmental harm brought on by its Nigerian subsidiary. In addition to seeking justice for victims, strategic litigation establishes precedents that could affect business practices. However, these cases need a lot of time and resources, and they frequently encounter major legal obstacles.
The Link Between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Human Rights
CSR, or marketable social responsibility, has evolved from a charity concept to a crucial, moral, and strategic way of doing business. CSR is essentially a voluntary effort on the part of corporations to operate in a way that supports sustainable development by working closely with stakeholders, including communities, workers, and civil society, to advance environmental sustainability and social welfare. Given that businesses have significant influence over the enjoyment and Défense of fundamental rights, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is becoming more and more integrated with the concept of mortal rights.
Mortal rights in CSR textures usually include anti-corruption principles, the right to a healthy environment, and labour rights (including freedom of delineation and favourable working conditions). These arrears are especially important for multinational corporations (TNCs), whose international supply chains and cross-jurisdictional operations have the potential to impact workers in several legal systems as well as vulnerable communities. Legal compliance is no longer the only expectation; pots are now urged to conduct innovative actions that support and strengthen morality and mortal rights.
The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), often known as the Ruggie Principles, are a key piece of international soft law that marked a turning point in the incorporation of mortal rights into CSR initiatives. These guidelines offer a comprehensive framework composed of three interrelated pillars.
The State Obligation to protect Human Rights – states are required to protect individualities against fatal rights violations by third parties, such as corporations, using relevant programs, legislation, and judiciary mechanisms.
The Commercial Obligation to Respect Human Rights – pots are obligated to refrain from violating the rights of others and manage negative effects with which they are engaged, indeed in the lack of local legal conditions.
Access to Remedy – Countries and pots have to provide access to effective judicial or non-judicial grievance mechanisms for victims of mortal rights violations committed in the context of business..
Future Directions
In light of patient challenges in icing marketable responsibility for mortal rights abuses, there is an emergent consensus among scholars, policymakers, and civil society players on the imperative to pursue further stronger and enforceable fabrics. The following are critical future directions towards addressing legal and governance gaps in marketable mortal rights responsibility.
1. Towards List International Regulation – One of the most important advances in international discussion about business and human rights is the push towards the transfer of a list international convention. In contrast to being voluntary textiles (e.g., the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights), a convention would place reasonably enforceable marks on transnational ppots (TNCs and provide for international monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. The UN Open- Ended Intergovernmental Working Group (OEIGWG) has been spearheading lodgement on such a convention since 2014. Advocates believe that a binding instrument is necessary to close the legal loopholes which currently enable pots to avoid responsibility for mortal rights abuses, especially in authorities with feeble nonsupervisory institutions.
2. Consolidating Domestic Legal fabrics – Host and home countries have a pivotal role to play in fine-tuning marketable responsibility. Strengthening local legal systems entails enacting and enforcing laws that place responsibility on parent firms for mortal rights violations by their accessories, such as the exercise of extraterritorial regulation. As an example, France’s Duty of Vigilance Law (2017) obliges big firms to fund mortal rights compliance across their worldwide force chains. also, the UK’s Modern Slavery Act (2015) permits sellable exposures regarding sweats to assist forced labour. These public-position legislations can be used as templates for more general legal changes and prove the viability of incorporating mortal rights morals into domestic marketable institutional arrangements.
3. Increased Due assiduity and translucence – There is a rising tendency toward mandatory mortal rights due assiduity (HRDD) legislations that obligate companies to actively discover, assist, and mitigate negative mortal rights effects along their operations and supply chains. These legislations will move marketable behaviour from reactive to precautionary by encasement mortal rights trouble assessments into business core processes. Within the European Union, the proposed Commercial Sustainability Due Assiduity Directive (CSDD) is the prime example of such a move as it wants to place enforceable scores on big firms operating in or with the EU. Improved due assiduity not only enhances compliance but also enhances translucence and responsibility by incorporating public reporting and stakeholder engagement.
4. Multi-Stakeholder enterprise and Civil Society Engagement – Good CSR and mortal rights governance entail collaborative strategies with governments, ports, international associations, and civil society. Multi-stakeholder enterprise, similar as the Extractive industriousness translucence Initiative (EITI) or the Fair Labor Association, provide forums for standard- setting, monitoring, and grievance mechanisms. Civil society organizations (CSOs) have an important role in revealing violations, support for victims, and pressuring governments and firms to act. Their action improves legitimacy, provides grassroots involvement, and ensures important control. future reforms must focus on broadening similar participatory governance systems to allow affected communities a voice in influencing marketable behaviour.
5. Focus on Access to Remedy – availability of remedy that victims of marketable abuses of mortal rights have effective access to is perhaps the most pressing and unresolved question. Remedies can be judicial orlon-judicial and ought to be available, affordable, accessible in a timely fashion, and culturally adaptable. The third pillar of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights stresses this imperative, but barriers similar as
legal standing, steep action costs, and procedural barriers continually block access to justice. future reforms need to focus on building up grievance mechanisms both in public and international cases, such as state-based judicial mechanisms, public mortal rights institutions, and sellable grievance channels. Special attention should also be given to icing reparations to victims, such as restitution, compensation, and assurances of non- repetition.
Conclusion
Transnational pots (TNCs) take on a central role in the global economy, and their activities have far- reaching implications for the enjoyment and protection of mortal rights. As profitable actors with immense power, resources, and global reach, TNCs can also contribute to the advancement of mortal rights or, again, become an accomplice to their violation. saleable Social Responsibility (CSR) enterprise and international materials most specifically the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights have served to raise awareness of the saleable commitment to respect human rights and have created normative potential for business practice. However, the effectiveness of these materials remains limited by their voluntary nature. While multitudinous pots have embraced CSR practices that proclaim respect for human rights, absence of binding scores in legislation continues to lead to irregular performance and weak responsibility. Voluntary ethics, isolated, are shy to offer marketable-relation to human rights abuses or determine meaningful access to redresses for such harmed individuals and communities. In actuality, the victims of these similar abuses always face gigantic legal and procedural obstacles in an effort to get justice, particularly where there are complex force chains and marketable structures in cross-border cases.
In response to these gaps in patients, there is a growing consensus that there is a need for an multi-faceted nonsupervisory solution. This entails the formulation and enforcement of binding international covenants or agreements on mortal and business rights and the reinforcement of public legal fabrics through law calling marketable mortal rights due assiduity. equivalent measures have to be supported by effective enforcement mechanisms, i.e., judicial and non-judicial redress schemes, so that compliance and responsibility are ensured. further, engagement of a wide range of players — governments, civil society, affected communities, and the private sector must be assured so that human rights issues get integrated into the core processes and decision-making procedures of pots. Ultimately, the full eventuality of CSR as a vehicle for mortal rights protection requires moving beyond representational commitments to significant, enforceable morals. Only through relatively rested and institutionally supported mechanisms can the benefits of globalization be shared more equally and the inherent rights of all individualities preserved and protected on the ground of marketable exertion.
REFERENCES
1. The day the Rana Plaza garment workers died: New documentary tells the stories of those who survived the collapse of a clothing factory near Dhaka | The Independent | The Independent
2. Rana Plaza — Clean Clothes Campaign
3. Nigeria oil: Shell ignored warnings of spill clean-up ‘scam’; whistleblower tells BBC 4. Corporate purchasing practices in global production networks: A socially contested terrain – ScienceDirect
5. Gender Mainstreaming and Corporate Social Responsibility: Reporting Workplace Issues | Journal of Business Ethics
6. ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf
7. International Labour Organization
8. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.1 44456
[ad_2]
Source link