Towards holding transnational corporations responsible for human rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a general review of international efforts to hold transnational corporations (TNCs) responsible for human rights. It tracks the evolution of international conventions related to TNCs and human rights and assesses their effectiveness. Design/methodology/approach The paper describes and analyzes efforts over the last four decades by the United Nations (UN), the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development, the International Labour Organization and non‐governmental groups to provide guidelines and encourage TNCs to aspire to international standards in human rights. Findings The early attempts to regulate TNCs internationally lacked any form of the robust compulsion, systemic monitoring and effective enforcement mechanisms necessary to deal with the magnitude of the global investment arena. However, during the last decade, there has been explicit recognition on the part of the UN that action is necessary and the most recent convention emanating from the UN, the Norms , may evolve into a binding instrument on TNCs. Originality/value This paper, by mapping the development of global ethical conventions up to the UN Norms on the responsibilities for TNCs and other business enterprises with regards to human rights, informs corporate officers of the state of global discussions on this issue and lays the groundwork for further scholarly analysis of the Norms in the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".