Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Business Ethics
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics 4/2019

05.02.2018 | Original Paper

Exploring the Link Between Human Rights, the Capability Approach and Corporate Responsibility

verfasst von: César González-Cantón, Sonia Boulos, Pablo Sánchez-Garrido

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 4/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The capability approach is gaining momentum as a theory of corporate responsibility and business ethics at a time when the UN Guiding Principles have become a most important framework. A novel approach is now emerging that seeks to understand and specify human rights obligations of businesses within the framework provided by the capability approach. This article partially examines the triad corporate responsibility–human rights–capability approach by exploring the relationship between human rights and capabilities. Thus, it offers conceptual and practical implications for a human rights perspective on corporate responsibility. The bulk of our thesis focuses on studying Nussbaum’s and Sen’s claim that human rights are entitlements to capabilities by means of a discussion of the notion of human dignity. In particular, we show the capability approach’s ability to dissipate theoretical and practical challenges posed by the notion of dignity. This article does not offer a detailed explanation of the implications of our investigation for human rights responsibilities of business. However, an outline of its potential contribution toward unfolding those obligations, conceptually and practically, is provided.
Vorheriger Artikel CSR as Gendered Neocoloniality in the Global South
Nächster Artikel Freedom, Autonomy, and Harm in Global Supply Chains

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
In this group, we also find Renouard (2011), Wanderley (2001), Bertland (2009), Westermann-Behaylo and co-authors (2016), Shivarajan and Srinivasan (2013), Parra (2008) and González-Cantón (2012).
 
2
In this line, there are scholars like Enderle (2004), Bonvin and Moachon (2012), Gagnon and Cornelius (1999), Cornelius et al. (2007), Cornelius (2002), Cornelius and Gagnon (2004), Cornelius and Skinner (2005, 2008), Leßmann (2012), and Leßmann and Bovin (2011).
 
3
The link between dignity and capabilities has received little attention. Some scholars have engaged in a theoretical conversation with the CA (Formosa and Mackenzie 2014; Bendik-Keymer 2014; Claassen 2014; Pirson 2017), whilst others have applied it to different topics. Westermann-Behaylo et al. (2016) have explored it in the context of stakeholder theory. Markova (2014) criticizes Nussbaum’s notion of dignity for lack of strong theoretical justification and find it necessary to turn to Marcel’s Christian humanism for guidance. Bertland (2009) considers that the CA can support virtue business ethics by suggesting human dignity as a proxy basis for the controversial notion of teleology.
 
4
However, Nussbaum’s (2011b) emphasis on ‘active striving’ would seem to weaken the attribution of dignity to fetuses or people in permanent vegetative state, which has drawn criticism on Nussbaum. For instance, Kittay (2005) suggests to change the source of dignity from minimal agency to the capacity to care and be cared for, which clearly provides broader coverage to the most vulnerable.
 
Literatur
Alkire, S. (2010). Human development: Definitions, critiques, and related concepts. Human development research papers (2009 to present), HDRP-2010-01, (pp. 1–96).
Bendik-Keymer, J. (2014). From human to all of life: Nussbaum’s transformation of dignity. In F. Comim & M. C. Nussbaum (Eds.), Capabilities, gender, equality: Towards fundamental entitlements (pp. 175–214). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bolton, S. C. (2005). Emotion management in the workplace. Gordonsville, VA: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bolton, S. C. (2007). Dignity in and at work: Why it matters. Dimensions of dignity at work (pp. 3–16). London: Routledge.
Bonvin, J.-M., & Moachon, E. (2012). Assessing employee voice in restructuring processes against the capability approach. A case study in the swiss metal sector. Management Revue,23(2), 158–172.
Buchanan, R. (2001). Human dignity and human rights: Thoughts on the principles of human-centered design. Design Issues,17(3), 35–39.
Burchardt, T., & Vizard, P. (2011). ‘Operationalizing’ the capability approach as a basis for equality and human rights monitoring in twenty-first-century Britain. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities,12(1), 91–119.
Carozza, P. G. (2003). Subsidiarity as a structural principle of international human rights law. American Journal of International Law,97, 38–79.
Carozza, P. G. (2008). Human dignity and judicial interpretation of human rights: A reply. European Journal of International Law,19(5), 931–944.
Carozza, P. G. (2011). Human dignity in constitutional adjudication. In T. Ginsburg & R. Dixon (Eds.), Research handbook in comparative constitutional law (pp. 459–472). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Cecchini, S., & Notti, F. (2011). Millennium development goals and human rights: Faraway, so close? Journal of Human Development and Capabilities,12(1), 121–133.
Claassen, R. (2014). Human dignity in the capability approach. In M. Düwell, J. Braarvig, R. Brownsword, & D. Mieth (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of human dignity. Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 240–249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comim, F. (2001). Operationalizing Sen’s capability approach. Paper presented at the justice and poverty: Examining Sen’s capability approach, Cambridge, 5–7 June
Cornelius, N. (2002). Building workplace equality: Ethics, diversity and inclusion. London: Cengage Learning EMEA.
Cornelius, N., & Gagnon, S. (2004). Still bearing the mark of cain? Ethics, diversity and inequality measurement. Business Ethics: A European Review,13(1), 27–40.
Cornelius, N., & Skinner, D. (2005). An alternative view through the glass ceiling: Using capabilities theory to reflect the career journeys of senior women. Women in Management Review,20(8), 595–602.
de Melo-Martín, I., & Salles, A. (2011). On disgust and human dignity. The Journal of Value Inquiry,45(2), 159–168.
Dierksmeier, C. (2016). Reframing economic ethics. Springer.
Drydyk, J. (2011). Responsible pluralism, capabilities, and human rights. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities,12(1), 39–61.
ECtHR. (2007). Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria. In E. C. o. H. Rights (Ed.), (Vol. App. No. 68354/01).
Enderle, G. (2004). Global competition and corporate responsibilities of small and medium-sized enterprises. Business Ethics: A European Review,13(1), 51–63.
Formosa, P., & Mackenzie, C. (2014). Nussbaum, Kant, and the capabilities approach to dignity. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice,17(5), 875–892.
Gagnon, S., & Cornelius, N. (1999). From ethics ‘by proxy’ to ethics in action: New approaches to understanding HRM and ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review,8(4), 225–235.
Glendon, M. A. (1998). Knowing the universal declaration of human rights. Notre Dame Law Review,73, 1153.
González-Cantón, C. (2012). Empowering people in the business frontline. The Ruggie’s framework and the capability approach. Management Revue. The International Review of Management Studies,23(2), 191–216.
Hahn, F. (1982). On some difficulties of the utilitarianism economist. In A. Sen & B. Williams (Eds.), Utilitarianism and beyond (pp. 187–198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press & Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
Hick, R., & Burckhardt, T. (2016). Capability deprivation. In D. Brady & L. M. Burton (Eds.), The oxford handbook of the social science of poverty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hicks, D. (2011). Dignity—Its essential role in resolving conflict. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hodson, R. (2001). Dignity at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kateb, G. (2011). Human dignity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kittay, E. (2005). Equality, dignity and disability. In M. A. Waldron & F. Lyons (Eds.), Perspectives on equality: The second Seamus Heaney lectures (pp. 95–122). Dublin: Liffey.
Leßmann, O. (2012). Applying the capability approach empirically: An overview with special attention to labor. Management Revue,23(2), 98–118.
Leßmann, O., & Bonvin, J.-M. (2011). Job-satisfaction in the broader framework of the capability approach. Management Revue,22(1), 84–99.
Lodigiani, R. (2010). Recalibrating lifelong learning and active citizenship: implications drawn from the capability approach. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education,3, 59–78.
Macklin, R. (2003). Dignity is a useless concept: It means no more than respect for persons or their autonomy. BMJ: British Medical Journal,327(7429), 1419.
Markova, A. (2014). The concept of dignity in the capability approach: A personalistic perspective. In M. Pop (Ed.), Values of the human person: Contemporary challenges (Vol. VIII, pp. 273–280, Vol. Romanian Philosophical Studies). Washington DC.: The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.
McCrudden, C. (2008). Human dignity and judicial interpretation of human rights. European Journal of International Law,19(4), 655–724.
McCrudden, C. (2013). In pursuit of human dignity: An introduction to current debates. Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series,309, 1–55.
McCrudden, C. (2015). Labour law as human rights law: A critique of the use of ‘dignity’ by Freedland and Kountouris. In A. Bogg, C. Costello, A. C. L. Davies, & J. Prassl (Eds.), The autonomy of labour law (p. 304). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1988). Nature, function and capability: Aristotle on political distribution. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary Volume I, 145–184.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1992). Human functioning and social justice: In defense of aristotelian essentialism. Political Theory,20(2), 202–246.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1995a). Emotions and women’s capabilities. In M. C. Nussbaum & J. Glover (Eds.), Women, culture and development. A study of human capabilities (pp. 360–401). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1995b). Human capabilities, female human beings. In M. C. Nussbaum & J. Glover (Eds.), Women, culture and development. A study of human capabilities (pp. 61–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Capabilities and human rights. Fordham Law Review,66, 273.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2000a). Women’s capabilities and social justice. Journal of Human Development,1(2), 219–247.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2000b). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics,9(2–3), 33–59.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2007a). Constitutions and capabilities: Perception against lofty formalism. Harvard Law Review,121, 4.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2007b). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011a). Capabilities, entitlements, rights: Supplementation and critique. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities,12(1), 23–37.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011b). Creating capabilities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2013). The cosmopolitan tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C., & Dixon, R. (2012). Abortion, dignity, and a capabilities approach. In B. Baines, D. Barak-Erez, & T. Kahana (Eds.), Feminist constitutionalism: Global perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Olson, K. (2002). Recognizing gender, redistributing labor. Social Politics,9, 380–410.
Osmani, S. R. (2005). Poverty and human rights: Building on the capability approach. Journal of Human Development,6(2), 205–219.
Parra, C. M. (2008). Quality of life markets: Capabilities and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities,9(2), 207–227.
Pirson, M. (2017). Humanistic management: Protecting dignity and promoting well-being. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Power, J. L., Brotheridge, C. M., Blenkinsopp, J., Bowes-Sperry, L., Bozionelos, N., Buzady, Z., et al. (2013). Acceptability of workplace bullying: A comparative study on six continents. Journal of Business Research,66(3), 374–380.
Renouard, C. (2011). Corporate social responsibility, utilitarianism, and the capabilities approach. Journal of Business Ethics,98(1), 85–97.
Robeyns, I. (2003). Sen’s capability approach and gender inequalities: Selecting relevant capabilities. Feminist Economics,9(2–3), 61–92.
Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development,6(93), 93–117.
Sen, A. K. (1980). Equality of what? In S. McMurrin (Ed.), Tanner lectures on human values (Vol. 1, pp. 196–220). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, University of Utah Press.
Sen, A. K. (1982a). Choice, welfare and measurement. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Sen, A. K. (1982b). Rights and agency. Philosophy & Public Affairs,1(11), 3–39.
Sen, A. K. (1984a). Resources, Values and Development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Sen, A. K. (1984b). Rights and capabilities. In A. K. Sen (Ed.), Resources, values and development. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sen, A. K. (1985a). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Pub. Co.
Sen, A. K. (1985b). Well-being, agency, and freedom. Journal of Philosophy,82(4), 169–221.
Sen, A. K. (1985c). Women, technology and sexual divisions. Trade and Development,6, 195–223.
Sen, A. K. (1987). On ethics and economics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Sen, A. K. (1997). Human rights and Asian values: What Lee Kuan Yew and Le Peng don’t understand about Asia. The New Republic,217(2–3), 33–40.
Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc.
Sen, A. K. (2002). Rationality and freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. K. (2005b). Human rights and the limits of law. Cardozo Law Review,27, 2913–2927.
Sen, A. K. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sharkey, A. (2014). Robots and human dignity: A consideration of the effects of robot care on the dignity of older people. Ethics and Information Technology,16(1), 63–75.
Stark, C. A. (2009). Respecting human dignity: Contract versus capabilities. Metaphilosophy,40(3–4), 366–381.
Tasioulas, J. (2013). Human dignity as a foundation for human rights. In C. McCrudden (Ed.), Understanding human dignity. Oxford: British Academy, Oxford University Press.
UN. (2011). Guiding principles on business and human rights: Implementing the United Nations “protect, respect and remedy” framework (J. G. Ruggie, Trans.). (pp. 1–42). New York, NY: United Nations Human Rights Council.
UN General Assembly. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III).
UN General Assembly. (1996a). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, 999, 171.
UN General Assembly. (1996b). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, 993, 3.
UNDP. (2000). Human rights and human development. Human development report 2000. (pp. 290). New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme.
Unni, J. (2009). Gender differentials in education: Exploring the capabilities approach. Economic and Political Weekly,44(9), 111–117.
Vizard, P. (2006). Poverty and human rights. Sen’s ‘capability perspective’ explored. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vizard, P., Fukuda-Parr, S., & Elson, D. (2011). Introduction: The capability approach and human rights. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities,12(1), 1–22.
Waldron, J. (2010). Torture, terror, and trade-offs: Philosophy for the White House. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walsh, J. P., Weber, K., & Margolis, J. D. (2003). Social issues and management: Our lost cause found. Journal of Management,29(6), 859–881.
Wanderley, L. O. (2001). Sen’s capabilities approach: A meaningful framework for corporate social responsibility? Paper presented at the justice and poverty: Examining Sen’s capability approach, Cambridge, June
Metadaten
Titel
Exploring the Link Between Human Rights, the Capability Approach and Corporate Responsibility
verfasst von
César González-Cantón
Sonia Boulos
Pablo Sánchez-Garrido
Publikationsdatum
05.02.2018
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3801-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2019

Journal of Business Ethics 4/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Are We Moving Beyond Voluntary CSR? Exploring Theoretical and Managerial Implications of Mandatory CSR Resulting from the New Indian Companies Act

Original Paper

Employees as Conduits for Effective Stakeholder Engagement: An Example from B Corporations

Original Paper

Squared Away: Veterans on the Board of Directors

Original Paper

Reexamining Corporate Social Responsibility and Shareholder Value: The Inverted-U-Shaped Relationship and the Moderation of Marketing Capability

Original Paper

Old Wine in New Bottles? Parentalism, Power, and Its Legitimacy in Business–Society Relations

Original Paper

Activism and Abdication on the Inside: The Effect of Everyday Practice on Corporate Responsibility

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise