abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

25 Jan 2016

Menno T. Kamminga, Business and Human Rights Journal, Volume 1, Issue 1

Company Responses to Human Rights Reports: An Empirical Analysis

How do companies respond to their critics? Are there significant differences in responsiveness between industrial sectors, between the countries in which companies are based, and between the companies themselves? Do responses reflect the belief that companies have a responsibility to respect human rights? Do companies that participate in the UN Global Compact react more responsibly than those that do not? This article attempts to answer these questions by examining company responses to civil society reports contained in the company response database of the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. The analysis covers responses to 1877 requests made by the Resource Centre from 2005–2014. [Also refers to Aditya Birla Group, AngloGold Ashanti, Apple, Banco Espírito Santo, Barrick Gold, BHP Billiton, Chevron, China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), China Power Investment, Endiama (Empresa Nacional de Diamantes de Angola), Foxconn (part of Hon Hai), Gilead Sciences, Glencore, Goldcorp, Golden Star Resources, Hindalco (part of Aditya Birla Group), Hon Hai ,Huawei Technologies, Microsoft Myanmar Oil & Gas Enterprise (MOGE), Newmont, Nike, ONGC (Oil & Natural Gas Corporation), Shell, Walmart, and  Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (ZMDC).]

Story Timeline