Regulating for corporate human rights abuses: The emergence of corporate reporting on the ILO's human rights standards within the global garment manufacturing and retail industry
Introduction
In the introduction to Human Rights and Empire, Douzinas (2007, p. 33) observes,
“Human rights are the way people speak about the world and their aspirations, the expression of what is universally good in life. They have become ingrained in the new world order, their claims adopted, absorbed and reflexively insured against challenge. Assent and critique, approbation and censure are part of the same game, both contributing to the endless proliferation and to the colonialism of rights.”
Yet despite the ubiquitous nature of the human rights discourse, there is a surprising lack of critical accounting scholarship on corporate disclosure in relation to human rights obligations; the emerging regulatory environment which may lie behind these disclosures; or what the application of human rights within a business context means for the prospect of greater corporate accountability. This study attempts to begin to address this lacuna by investigating the adoption of the International Labour Organisation's (ILO's) workplace human rights standards by major global retail companies that source products from developing countries, as disclosed in their corporate reporting media. While prior research has focused on the impact of the media (see, Brown and Deegan, 1998, Deegan et al., 2002, Islam and Deegan, 2010) and Non Government Organisations (NGOs) (see, Deegan and Blomquist, 2006, Tilt, 1994) on the operating and reporting behaviour of companies, to date there has been little detailed study in the accounting literature of the global regulatory shifts that have accompanied growing concerns over the complicity of multinational corporations in human rights abuses in developing countries. Specifically, there has been little exploration of the regulatory function of International Governmental Organisations (IGOs) within the global economy and their role in introducing human rights obligations into the discourse of corporate accountability.
The paper builds on Islam and Deegan's (2008) study of the Bangladesh Garments Manufactures and Exporters Association (BGMEA), and in particular their inference that human rights obligations were beginning to work their way into supplier relationships through the ILO's workplace standards. This is an interesting observation as historically the global business community has forcefully resisted bringing the language of human rights into the sphere of corporate responsibility (Kinley and Chambers, 2006). For example, the UN Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights (2003) represents one of the best known attempts to highlight the potentially negative impact of corporate activity on human rights and to extend corporate responsibility for human rights abuses to suppliers and other business partners that fall within their sphere of influence. This attempt to develop an international set of legally binding norms reflected a growing appreciation of the inability of individual States to hold multinational corporations accountable for complicity in human rights abuses that occurred outside national borders. This problem is particularly prevalent within the garment retail sector as multinational companies transfer production locations to developing countries where costs are cheaper, but this is often because labour rights are either weakly enforced or entirely absent (Custers, 1997). A number of high profile companies like Nike, Disney and Coca Cola experienced mounting global criticisms in the 90s over incidents of child and forced labour, accidents from fires, verbal and physical abuse or direct exploitation of workers in their supply factories in developing countries (Bachman, 2000, Collingsworth, 2002, Spar, 1998, Wah, 1998). However, as Kinley and Chambers (2006, p. 449) point out, in the face of this escalating concern,
“Business leaders mounted critiques, not only of the Norms document itself, but also of any expansion of the concept of corporate liability for human rights responsibilities that went beyond the current model of self-regulation through corporate codes of conduct, social responsibility policies and the like.”
Partly as a consequence of this aggressive lobbying, the Norms have effectively been sidelined (Kinley and Chambers, 2006). Yet it may be that the enduring threat of a more legally binding set of principles goes some way towards explaining the somewhat paradoxical hint that human rights obligations are beginning to enter the disclosure narratives of large multinational garment retailers through the ILO's workplace standards. IGOs appear to play an important role in the emerging disclosure in relation to corporate accountability for human rights by developing global standards; forging alliances with NGOs and collectively using media to pressurise companies and their suppliers.
While we retain a relatively sceptical position on whether or not these corporate commitments to workplace rights correlate with substantive improvement in the lot of children and workers in emerging economies (see for example the ILRF, 2007) and also whether the broader human rights discourse represents an effective mechanism for securing greater economic justice (Douzinas, 2007), we nevertheless contend that this shift in the language of corporate responsibility and the institutional pressures that may be partially behind it, represent powerful and important new ways of constructing workers (as bundles of rights) and corporations as duty bearers (Barrientos, 2000, Christopherson and Lillie, 2005, Islam and Deegan, 2008, Islam and Deegan, 2010, Mc Clintock, 1999, Ruggie, 2008) in ways which both colonise and emancipate. We contend that the critical accounting community has yet to fully explore the extent to which this shift in discourse operates or how it could be employed for, “dissent, resistance and rebellion against the oppression of power and the injustice of law.”
The paper therefore has three objectives. Firstly, it empirically explores the extent to which a group of multinational garment retailers invoke the language of human rights when disclosing their corporate responsibilities. We specifically focus on major multinational garments and retail companies’ disclosures in relation to the adoption of the ILOs’ workplace human rights standards. We undertake a content analysis of the annual reports, stand-alone social responsibility reports and social responsibility codes of conduct of a sample of large multinational garment companies. Secondly, we tentatively seek to understand the regulatory space that may have influenced these large corporations to adopt the language of human rights obligations. In particular, we draw on a combination of Ayres and Braithwaite's Responsive Regulation theory and neo-institutional theory in order to study the role that International Governmental Organisation's (IGO) such as the ILO may have played in these disclosures. Constructing corporate obligations through the language of human rights is of course ideological and their recognition requires regulatory mechanisms to construct both corporations and individuals in a particular way. We draw on responsive regulation theory as one way of framing the global regulatory space within which the ILO is involved in shaping the discourse on human rights as it is beginning to be applied to and by corporations (Ayres and Braithwaite, 1992, Braithwaite, 2002a, Braithwaite, 2002b, Braithwaite, 2006). Responsive regulation theory therefore implies a responsiveness in the regulatory environment to perceived gaps in governance and accountability. We draw on neo-institutional theory on the other hand to model the responsiveness of corporations to the field within which they are being institutionalized and as such, assume they will respond with a mixture of isomorphic behaviour (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) and strategic manipulation (Oliver, 1991). By combining both these theories, we seek to understand how institutional human rights standards such as the ILO's 1998, workplace standards, contribute towards the construction and practice of corporate accountability. Finally, the paper begins to provide some critical reflections on the power and potential within the corporate adoption of the language of human rights.
The paper therefore makes two important contributions to the literature. Firstly, it provides an insight into corporate disclosure on human rights responsibilities, an area where there is almost no academic literature at present1 and secondly the paper contributes towards a more general understanding of the evolving regulatory dynamic that is emerging in response to the globalisation of capital and liberalisation of trade.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides some background on the global retail industry and the ILO; Section 3 delineates the theoretical perspectives underpinning the paper; the research methods are outlined in Section 4; the results are presented in Section 5 and the paper closes with some critical reflections on whether the discourse of human rights and it's institutions have the power to effective substantive change in relation to corporate accountability.
Section snippets
Globalization, clothing and retail companies, developing countries and the roles of IGOs
The exploitation of workers in developing countries is unquestionably related to a global economic system that places the rights of capital in tension with the rights of labour (ILRF, 2007). The clothing and retail industry has one of the most extensive of all worldwide production networks which is driven by the desire to minimise production costs and maximise shareholder value (Wilkins, 2000). As the world's largest importers of garments, the US global clothing companies import 89% of total
Theoretical perspectives
We draw on responsive regulation theory to model the responsiveness in the regulatory environment to perceived gaps in governance and accountability and we draw on neo-institutional theory to conceptualise the responsiveness of organisations to the shifting regulatory field through which they are institutionalised. We combine both theories to provide a comprehensive framework for exploring corporate (non)disclosure on human rights and also to address two main criticisms of institutional theory:
Research methods
This study reviewed the corporate adoption of the ILO's workplace human rights standards as reported in the annual reports, stand-alone social responsibility reports and social responsibility codes of conduct of eighteen major global clothing and retail companies.
Due to a lack of publicly available information on where multinational clothing manufacturers source their products, constructing a database of companies proved to be a significant task. We initially obtained information from the
Results
This section outlines the results of our study. The analysis proceeds on two levels. Firstly, we focus on the historical reporting patterns of disclosure relating to an expressed and explicit commitment to each of the 5 labour rights standards. Secondly, we explore the extent to which the disclosure makes reference to associated practices and policies related to these commitments. As such we explore disclosure relating to whether and how an expressed commitment is enacted or evidenced.
Concluding remarks
This paper has explored the level of disclosure on the ILO's workplace human rights standards by major multinational companies that source products from developing countries. The results indicate that the number of companies disclosing ILO's workplace human rights standards has significantly increased since 1998 – the year the ILO Declaration was confirmed and accepted by the global community. We suggest that in response to the perceived inability of individual nation states to regulate the
References (75)
Responsive regulation and developing economies
World Development
(2006)- et al.
The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: a typology and frequency-based analysis
Accounting, Organizations and Society
(1987) - et al.
Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: an exploration of the interaction between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals industry
Accounting, Organizations and Society
(2006) - et al.
Ethics in international business: multinational approaches to child labour
Journal of World Business
(2004) - et al.
The Effectiveness of self-regulation: corporate codes of conduct and child labour
European Management Journal
(2002) Commentary on Roy Suddaby, Yves Gendron and Helen Lam: the organisational context of professionalism in accounting
Accounting, Organisations and Society
(2009)- et al.
Transnational regulation of professional services: governance dynamics of field level organisational change
Accounting, Organisation and Society
(2007) - et al.
Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony
Accounting, Organizations and Society
(2004) Labor standards: Nike and Fair Labor Association
(2010)Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting: beyond current theorizing
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
(2002)
Managing social and environmental performance: do companies have adequate information?
Australian Accounting Review
Responsive regulation: transcending the deregulation debate
The political economy of child labour and its impacts on international business
Business Economics
Really responsive regulation. LSE law, society and economy working paper
Globalisation and ethical trade: assessing the implications for development
Journal of International Development
The views of corporate managers on the current state of, and future prospects for, social reporting in Bangladesh: an engagement-based study
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
Rewards and regulation
Journal of Law and Society
Restorative justice and responsive regulation
The public disclosure of environmental performance information – a dual test of media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory
Accounting and Business Research
Legitimacy theory or managerial reality construction?. Corporate social disclosure in marks and Spencer Plc Corporate Reports, 1969–1997
Accounting Forum
Post-nationalism and the quest for constitional substitutes
Journal of Law and Society
Neither global nor standard: corporate strategies in the new era of labor standards
Environment and Planning A
Boundaries in the field of human rights: the key human rights challenge. Developing enforcement mechanisms
The Harvard Human Rights Journal
Capital accumulation and women's labor in Asian economics
Institutional theory and institutional change: introduction to the special research forum
Academy of Management Journal
Financial accounting theory
An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures BHP from 1983–1997: a test of legitimacy theory
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
The pragmatic and ethical barriers to corporate social responsibility disclosure: the Nike case
Journal of Business Ethics
The making and remaking of organization context: duality and the institutionalization process
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields
American Sociological Review
An effective confluence of forces in support of workers’ rights: ILO standards, US Trade Laws, Unions, and NGOs
Human Rights Quarterly
Human Rights & Empire, the political philosophy of cosmopolitanism
Strategies and instruments for organising CSR by small and large businesses in the Netherlands
Journal of Business Ethics
Theorising change: the role of professional associations in the transformational associations in the transformation of institutionalised fields
Academy of Management Journal
Understanding Strategic Change: The Contribution of Archetypes
Academy of Management Journal
Stakeholder pressure and socially responsible purchasing
Finance, Marketing and Production
Cited by (104)
Accounting for human rights: Evidence of due diligence in EU-listed firms’ reporting
2024, Critical Perspectives on AccountingThe current state of corporate human rights disclosure of the global top 500 business enterprises: Measurement and determinants
2023, Critical Perspectives on AccountingCitation Excerpt :This study connects with several prior studies in critical accounting and human rights research (e.g., Islam & McPhail, 2011; Deegan, 2017; Frankental, 2011; Gallhofer et al., 2011; Gray & Gray, 2011; McPhail & McKernan, 2011). Closest to our study is arguably Islam and McPhail (2011), who show for 18 major global clothing and retail companies that considerable differences exist in human rights reporting across countries. However, their findings are limited to a specific industry (clothing/retail) and a small number of firms (nine firms from the USA; nine firms from the EU).
The impact of the UK's Modern Slavery Act (2015) on the disclosure of FTSE 100 companies
2023, British Accounting ReviewCitation Excerpt :Sustainability reporting standards, guides and indicators for human rights reporting produced by GRI and SDGs include specific reference to modern slavery and provide indicators for specific related issues of human rights, such as GRI-406, GRI-407, GRI-408, GRI-409, GRI-410, and GRI-411, while GRI 412 indicator in particular offers guidance on the organisational management approach. Earlier studies have looked at issues of employee disclosure, which overlaps with modern slavery, such as child and forced labour and unsafe working environments (Cooper et al., 2011; Giuliani, 2016; Hamann et al., 2009; Islam & McPhail, 2011; Siddiqui & Uddin, 2016). Empirical research on modern slavery within human rights reporting is however at an early stage and there seems to lack a of comprehensive overviews of modern slavery disclosure.
Modern slavery disclosure regulations in the global supply Chain: A world-systems perspective
2023, Critical Perspectives on AccountingThe Garment Industry in Bangladesh, Corporate Social Responsibility of Multinational Corporations, and The Impact of COVID-19
2022, Asian Journal of Law and Society