The evolution of transnational sustainability governance through a systems theory lens
From rejection to acceptance of business responsibilities for human rights
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1863Keywords:
business and human rights, sustainable business conduct, rationality-based arguments, regulatory communication, regulated self-regulationAbstract
This article applies Luhmann’s systems theory approach to the argumentative dynamics of the processes and outcomes of key UN and EU initiatives during the decade 2002-2011 in regard to the development and acceptance of human rights responsibilities for business enterprises. That decade saw a change from rejection to welcoming of ideas on such responsibilities as a key social sustainability issue. Demonstrating the use of systems theory to empirical cases, the article shows how the systems theory perspective generates important insights on communicative aspects of a regulatory process towards a normative change in contexts with multiple and diverse interests at play in today’s legal order where the transnational character of many sustainability problems exceeds the nation state. The article fills a knowledge gap concerning processes for governing transnational sustainability issues, where the territorial limits of national public law and the weak private-actor coverage of international law pose challenges to conventional regulation.
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads:
14(5)_Buhmann_OSLS 350
XML_14(5)_Buhmann_OSLS 13
References
Asian Civil Society Statement to U.N. Special Representative on Transnational Business and Human Rights at the Asia Regional Consultation [online]. Bangkok, Thailand, 27 June 2006. Available at: https://docs.escr-net.org/usr_doc/Asian_Civil_Society_Statement-_Bangkok_Consultation.pdf
Augenstein, D., 2022. Towards a new legal consensus on business and human rights: A 10th anniversary essay. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights [online], 40(1), 35-55. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/09240519221076337 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09240519221076337
Ayres, I., and Braithwaite, J., 1992. Responsive regulation: Transcending the deregulation debate [online]. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195070705.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195070705.001.0001
Berger-Walliser, G., and Shrivastava, P., 2015. Beyond compliance: Sustainable development, business, and Pro-active Law. University of Connecticut School of Business Research Paper Series [online]. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Beyond-Compliance%3A-Sustainable-Development%2C-and-Law-Berger-Walliser-Shrivastava/aa9c3c0cae29b45034b5c263cf8727c9d03b72d2
Berger-Walliser, G., Shrivastava, P., and Sulkowski, A., 2016. Using Proactive legal strategies for Corporate Environmental Sustainability, Michigan Journal of Environmental and Administrative Law [online], 6(1), 1-36. Available at: https://doi.org/10.36640/mjeal.6.1.using DOI: https://doi.org/10.36640/mjeal.6.1.using
Berle, A.A., 1931. Corporate powers as powers in trust. Harvard Law Review [online], 44(7), 1049-1074. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1331341 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1331341
Bijlmakers, S., 2013. Business and human rights governance and democratic legitimacy: the UN “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework and the Guiding Principles. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research [online], 26(3), 288-301. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2013.771894 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2013.771894
Bowen, H.R., 1953. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Nueva York: Harper & Row.
Buhmann, K., 2009. Regulating Corporate Social and Human Rights Responsibilities at the UN plane: Institutionalising new forms of law and law-making approaches? Nordic Journal of International Law [online], 78(1), 1-52. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/157181009X397063 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/157181009X397063
Buhmann, K., 2011. Integrating human rights in emerging regulation of Corporate Social Responsibility: The EU case. International Journal of Law in Context [online], 7(2), 139-179. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552311000048 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552311000048
Buhmann, K., 2017. Changing sustainability norms through communicative processes: the emergence of the Business & Human Rights regime as transnational law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Buhmann, K., and Wettstein, F., 2017. Business and Human Rights: Not just another CSR issue? In: A. Rasche, M. Morsing and J. Moon, eds., Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategy, Communication, Governance [online]. Cambridge University Press, 379-404. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316335529.024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316335529.024
Campilongo, C.F., Amato, L.F., and De Barros, M.A.L., 2021. Luhmann and Social-Legal Research: An Empirical Agenda for Social Systems Theory. London: Routledge.
Carroll, A.B., 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance, The Academy of Management Review [online], 4(4), 497-505. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1979.4498296 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1979.4498296
Carroll, A.B., 1991. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholder. Business Horizons [online], 34(4), 39-48. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G
CSR Alliance, 2009. Toolbox: Equipping companies and stakeholders for a competitive and responsible Europe [online]. Brussels: CSR Europe. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5df776f6866c14507f2df68a/t/5e6755b07891847c6ce6893d/1583830483583/For+a+Competitive+and+Responsible+Europe.pdf
Dalberg-Larsen, J., 1999. Lovene og livet. Copenhague: Greens Jura.
Dalberg-Larsen, J., 2001. Pragmatisk retsteori. Copenhague: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.
Dodd, E.M., 1932. For whom are corporate managers trustees? Harvard Law Review [online], 45(7), 1145-1163. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1331697 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1331697
European Multistakeholder Forum (MSF), 2004. Final Results and recommendations (“Final report”) [online]. 29 June. Brussels: MSF. Available at:https://www.aeca.es/old/comisiones/rsc/documentos_fundamentales_rsc/ue/forum.pdf
European Parliament, 2023. Amendments adopted on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (P9TA(2023)0209). [online]. 1 June. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52023AP0209
European Union, 2002. Corporate Social Responsibility: A business contribution to sustainable development, (COM(2002)347) [online]. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/corporate-social-responsibility-a-business-contribution-to-sustainable-development.html
European Union, 2006. Implementing the Partnership for Growth and Jobs: Making Europe a Pole of Excellence on CSR (COM (2006)136.final) [online]. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0136:FIN:en:PDF
Fairbrass, J., 2011. Exploring Corporate Social Responsibility Policy in the European Union: A Discursive Institutionalist Analysis. Journal of European Market Studies [online], 49(5), 949-970. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02162.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02162.x
FIDH, 2006. Position paper: Comments to the interim report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other business enterprises, February 22, 2006 [online]. Federation Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l’Homme, 15 March. Available at: http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/business442a.pdf
Gatta, F.L., 2020. From Soft International Law on Business and Human Rights to Hard EU Legislation? In: M. Buscemi et al., eds., Legal Sources in Business and Human Rights [online]. Leiden: Brill, 248-275. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004401181_013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004401181_013
Hess, D. (2008). The three pillars of Corporate Social Reporting as New Governance regulation: Disclosure, dialogue and development, Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(4).,447-482 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200818434
Hess, D., 1999. Social Reporting: A reflexive law approach to Corporate Social Responsiveness. Journal of Corporation Law, 25(1), 41-84.
Hildén, M., Jordan, A., and Huitem, D., 2017. The search for climate change and sustainability solutions: The promise and the pitfalls of experimentation. Journal of Cleaner Production [online], 169, 1-7. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.019
Kinderman, D., 2013. Corporate Social Responsibility in the EU 1993-2013: Institutional ambiguity, economic crises, business legitimacy, and bureaucratic politics, Journal of Common Market Studies [online], 51(3), 702-712. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12021
King, M., 1996. Self-Producing systems: Implications and applications of autopoiesis by John Mingers (review article). Journal of Law and Society [online], 23(4), 601-605. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1410486 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1410486
Kinley, D., Nolan, J., and Zerial, N., 2007. The politics of corporate social responsibility: Reflections on the United Nations Human Rights Norms for Corporations. Company and Securities Law Journal [online], 30-42. Available at: https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/files/media/bhr/files/The-Politics-of-CSR-by-Kinley-Nolan-Zerial-vol-25-1-2007.pdf
Knox, J.H., 2008. Horizontal human rights law. American Journal of International Law [online], 102(1), 1-47. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0002930000039828 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0002930000039828
Kolstad, I., 2012. Human rights and positive corporate duties: the importance of corporate–state interaction. Business Ethics: A European Review [online], 21(3), 276-285. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2012.01654.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2012.01654.x
Liikanen, E., 2003. DG Enterprise and Information Society, EU Multistakeholder Forum on CSR, High Level meetings [online]. 13 November. Available at: http://circa.europa.eu/irc/empl/csr_eu_multi_stakeholder_forum/info/data/en/CSR%20Forum%20031113%20speech%20EL.htm
Luhmann, N., 1986. The autopoiesis of social systems. In: F. Geyer and J.v.c. Zouwen, eds., Sociocybernetic Paradoxes. London: Sage, 172-192.
Luhmann, N., 1992a. Some problems with reflexive law, In: G. Teubner and A. Febbrajo, eds., European Yearbook in the Sociology of Law: State, law and economy as autopoietic systems: Regulation and autonomy in a new perspective. Milan: Giuffre, 389-416.
Luhmann, N., 1992b. The coding of the legal system. In: G. Teubner and A. Febbrajo, eds., European Yearbook in the Sociology of Law: State, law and economy as autopoietic systems: Regulation and autonomy in a new perspective. Milan: Giuffre, 146-186.
Luhmann, N., 1995. Social Systems. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.
Luhmann, N., 2015. Law as a Social System. Oxford University Press. (Originally published in 1993).
Macchi, C., and Bright, C., 2020. Hardening Soft Law: The Implementation of Human Rights Due Diligence Requirements in Domestic Legislation. In: M. Buscemi et al., eds., Legal Sources in Business and Human Rights [online]. Leiden: Brill, 218-247. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004401181_012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004401181_012
Mayer, A.E., 2009. Human rights as a dimension of CSR: The blurred lines between legal and non-legal categories. Journal of Business Ethics [online], 88, 561-577. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0315-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0315-6
MSF– Civil Society (2003) EU Multistakeholder Forum on CSR, Round Tables, List of Subthemes – Civil Society Organisations [online]. Available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/72afe574-5cfe-11ea-8b81-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
Munuo, N., and Glazewski, J., 2018. The Implementation of REDD+: Self-Governance Through the Lens of Reflexive Law. Carbon & Climate Law Review [online], 12(2), 124–131. Available at: https://doi.org/10.21552/cclr/2018/2/7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21552/cclr/2018/2/7
Nielsen, S.P.P., forthcoming 2024. Introduction: Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory and sociology of law. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 14(4-this issue). DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2015
Nobles, R., and Schiff, D., 2009. Why do judges talk the way they do? International Journal of Law in Context [online], 5(1), 25-49. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552309005023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552309005023
Nobles, R., and Schiff, D., 2012. Using system theory to study legal pluralism: What could be gained? Law & Society Review [online], 46(2), 265-294. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00489.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00489.x
Nonet, P., and Selznick, P., 1978. Law and society in transition: Toward Responsive Law. New York: Harper/Colophon.
OECD, 1976. Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.
OHCHR, 2004. Consultation on business and human rights: Summary of discussions. Geneva: UN.
Orts, E.W., 1995. A reflexive model of environmental regulation. Business Ethics Quarterly [online], 5(4), 779-794. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/3857414 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3857414
Parent, A.S., 2002. Statement, High Level meetings, 16 October 2002, Agenda, Statements, Anne-Sophie Parent - Member Social Platform Management Committee, EU Multistakeholder Forum on CSR, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/72afe574-5cfe-11ea-8b81-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
Peeters, M., 2002. Statement, High Level meetings, 16 October 2002, Agenda, Statements, Melanie Peeters – BEUC [online]. EU Multistakeholder Forum on CSR. Available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/72afe574-5cfe-11ea-8b81-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
Rasche, A., et al., 2023. Corporate Sustainability: What It Is and Why It Matters. In: A. Rasche et al., eds., Corporate Sustainability: Managing Responsible Business in a Globalized World [online]. Cambridge University Press, 1-26. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009118644.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009118644.002
Rogowski, R., 1998. Autopoietic industrial relations and and reflexive labour law. In: T. Wilthagen, ed., Advancing theory in labour law and industrial relations in a global context. Amsterdam: North-Holland Press, 67-81.
Rogowski, R., 2015. Autopoesis in law. In: N.J. Smelser and P.B. Baltes, eds., International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Rogowski, R., 2023. Introduction. In: R. Rogowski, ed., The Anthem Companion to Niklas Luhmann [online]. London/New York/Melbourne/Delhi: Anthem Press, 1-13. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.766968.4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.766968.4
Rottleuthner, H., 1988. Biological metaphors in legal thought. In: G. Teubner, ed., Autopoietic law: A new approach to law and society [online]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 97-127. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110876451.97 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110876451.97
Ruggie, J.G., 2013. Just business. New York/London: Norton.
Sanford, G.E., 2003. Reflexive Law as a Legal Paradigm for Sustainable Development, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal [online], 10(1). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/belj/vol10/iss1/1
Schwanitz, D., 1995. Systems Theory According to Niklas Luhmann: Its Environment and Conceptual Strategies. Cultural Critique [online], 30(1), 137-170. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1354435 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1354435
Schwartz, M.S., and Carroll, A.B., 2003. Corporate Social Responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly [online], 13(4), 503-530. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200313435 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200313435
Sheehy, B., 2016. Private and public corporate regulatory systems: Does CSR provide systemic alternative to public law. UC Davis Business Law Journal [online], 17(1), 1-56. Available at: https://blj.ucdavis.edu/archives/17/1/private-and-public-corporate-regulatory-systems
Smit, L., et al., 2021. Human rights due diligence in global supply chains: evidence of corporate practices to inform a legal standard. The International Journal of Human Rights [online], 25(6), 945-973. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2020.1799196 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2020.1799196
Teubner, G., 1983. Substantive and reflective elements in modern law. Law and Society Review [online], 17(2), 239-285. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/3053348 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3053348
Teubner, G., 1984. Autopoiesis in Law and Society: A Rejoinder to Blankenburg. Law and Society Review [online], 18(2), 291-301. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/3053406 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3053406
Teubner, G., 1993. Law as an autopoietic system. Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell.
Teubner, G., Nobles, R., and Schiff, D., 2005. The Autonomy of law: An introduction to legal Autopoiesis. In: J. Penner et al., eds., Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press, 897-954.
Teubner, G., 1986. Introduction. In: G. Teubner, ed., Dilemmas of law in the welfare state. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 3-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110921526.3
Thornhill, C., 2023. Luhmann and constitutional sociology: Law and functional differentiation revisited. In: R. Rogowski, ed., The Anthem Companion to Niklas Luhmann [online]. London/New York/Melbourne/Delhi: Anthem Press, 15-36. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.766968.5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.766968.5
Tramontana, E., 2020. Multi-stakeholder Initiatives and New Models of Co-regulation in the Field of Business and Human Rights. In: M. Buscemi et al., eds., Legal Sources in Business and Human Rights [online]. Leiden: Brill, 145-170. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004401181_009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004401181_009
UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 2003. Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights (UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2) [online]. UN Commission on Human Rights, 26 August. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/501576?v=pdf
UN, 2006. Interim report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprise (UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/97) [online]. UN Commission on Human Rights, 22 February. Available at: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g06/110/27/pdf/g0611027.pdf?token=vTM8Qk01OwMYrFeXGq&fe=true
UN, 2008a. Clarifying the concepts of “Sphere of Influence” and “Complicity” (UN Doc. A/HRC/8/16) [online]. UN Human Rights Council, 15 May. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/633721?v=pdf
UN, 2008b. Protect, respect and remedy: A framework for business and human rights. 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 Doc. A/HRC/8/5) [online]. UN Human Rights Council, 7 April. Available at: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g08/128/61/pdf/g0812861.pdf?token=zc9W8tQ9PIM6A8jaH5&fe=true
UN, 2011. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect, Remedy’ Framework (UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31) [online]. UN Human Rights Council, 21 March. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Business/A-HRC-17-31_AEV.pdf
Wettstein, F., 2015. Normativity, Ethics and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: A Critical Assessment. Journal of Human Rights [online], 14(2), 162-182. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2015.1005733 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2015.1005733
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Karin Buhmann
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
Funding data
-
Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond
Grant numbers 0602-0842B
