Advertisement

An ‘Instrument of Moral Persuasion’—Multinational Enterprises and International Codes of Conduct in the 1970s

  • Thomas HajdukEmail author
Chapter
Part of the CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance book series (CSEG)

Abstract

This paper traces the codification of international norms for multinational enterprises in three steps. First, critical views on multinational enterprises in the early 1970s (the ‘multinational dilemma’) are examined on the basis of two central UN reports. In response to these reports, negotiations on international codes of conduct started. Section 2 analyses the drafting and substance of the two most prominent codes of their time, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the UN Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations. The paper concludes with a few observations on the legacy of the codes.

References

  1. Ahmia, M. (2009). The collected documents of the group of 77. The North-South dialogue, 1963–2008. New York, Oceana.Google Scholar
  2. Barnet, R. J. & Müller, R. E. (1974). Global reach: The power of the multinational corporations. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  3. Bevir, M. (1999). The logic of the history of ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (2006). Governance stories. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bevir, M., Rhodes, R. A. W., & Weller, P. (2003). Traditions of governance: Interpreting the changing role of the public sector in comparative and historical perspective. Public Administration, 81, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanpain, R. (1979). The OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises and labour relations 1976–1979: Experience and review. Deventer: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carroll, A. B., Goodpaster, K. E., Lipartito, K. J., Post, J. E., & Werhane, P. H. (2012). Corporate responsibility: The American experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dell, S. S. (1990). The United Nations and international business. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Economic and Social Council Commission on Transnational Corporations (ECOSOC-CTC). (1975). Report on the first session, official records of the economic and social council, Fifty-ninth Session, supplement No. 12. New York, document code: E./C.10/6.Google Scholar
  10. ECOSOC-CTC. (1976). Report on the second session. New York, document code: E./C.10/16.Google Scholar
  11. ECOSOC-CTC. (1978). Report on the sixth session. New York, document code: E./C.10/AC.2/8.Google Scholar
  12. Erklärung von Bern (Ed.). Die Unterwanderung des UNO-Systems durch multinationale Konzerne: Auszüge aus internen Protokollen, Zurich.Google Scholar
  13. Emmerij, L., Jolly, R., & Weiss, T. G. (2001). Ahead of the curve? UN ideas and global challenges. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  14. European Parliament (EP). (1977). Report on the principles to be observed by enterprises and governments in international economic activity. Strasbourg/Brussels, document code: PE 47.701/fin/Annex.Google Scholar
  15. Ferguson, N. (2010). Crisis, what crisis? The 1970s and the shock of the global. In N. Ferguson (Ed.), The shock of the global. The 1970s in perspective (pp. 1–24). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Friedman, M. (1970). A Friedman doctrine—The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine. September 13, pp. 32–33, 122–124.Google Scholar
  17. Günter, H. (1980). The tripartite declaration of principles (ILO): Standards and follow-up. In N. Horn (Ed.), Legal problems of codes of conduct for multinational enterprises (pp. 155–176). Deventer: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  18. International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). (1971). Resolution on freedom of association and multinational companies. ICFTU Economic and Social Bulletin, Jan-Feb, pp. 21–22.Google Scholar
  19. International Labour Organisation (ILO). (1977). Tripartite declaration of principles concerning multinational enterprises and social policy. Geneva.Google Scholar
  20. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2010). ISO 26000: Guidance on social responsibility. Geneva.Google Scholar
  21. Kransdorff, A. (1980). The curious case of the reluctant multinationals. Financial Times. April 22, p. 13.Google Scholar
  22. Muchlinski, P. T. (2007). Multinational enterprises and the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (1972). Policy perspectives for international trade and economic relations. Paris.Google Scholar
  24. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (1976). International investment and multinational enterprises. Paris.Google Scholar
  25. Petrini, F. (2011). ‘Who’ll stop the runaway shop? The battle to regulate multinationals’ activities inside the EEC at the dawn of globalization. Paper presented at the EUSA Twelfth Biennial International Conference, Boston, 3–5 March.Google Scholar
  26. Post, J. E. (2013). The United Nations global compact: A CSR milestone. Business and Society, 52(1), 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rasche, A. (2012). The United Nations and transnational corporations. How the UN global compact has changed the debate. In J. T. Lawrence & P. W. Beamish (Eds.), Globally responsible leadership. Managing according to the UN global compact (pp. 33–49). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Robinson, J. (1983). Multinationals and political control. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  29. Sampson, A. (1973). The sovereign state of ITT (3rd ed.). New York: Stein & Day.Google Scholar
  30. Sauvant, K. P. (1977). Controlling transnational enterprises: A review and some further thoughts. In K. P. Sauvant & H. Hasenpflug (Eds.), The new international economic order. Confrontation or cooperation between North and South? (pp. 356–434). Boulder Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  31. Schmidheiny, S. (1992). Changing course: A global business perspective on development and the environment. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Servan-Schreiber, J. J. (1967). Le défi américain. Paris: Denoël.Google Scholar
  33. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). (1973). Multinational corporations in world development. New York.Google Scholar
  34. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). (1974a). The impact of multinational corporations on development and international relations. New York.Google Scholar
  35. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). (1974b). Summary of the hearings before the group of eminent persons to study the impact of multinational corporations on development and on international relations. New York.Google Scholar
  36. United Nations. (1999). Press release SG/SM/7022: Secretary-general, addressing United States chamber of commerce, highlights fundamental shift of attitude towards private sector, 8 June. Available from: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999/19990608.SGSM7022.html. (11 January 2017).
  37. United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). (2011). Annual review. New York.Google Scholar
  38. United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). (2008). Protect, respect and remedy: A framework for business and human rights. Geneva.Google Scholar
  39. United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). (2011). Guiding principles on business and human rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, respect and remedy” Framework. Geneva.Google Scholar
  40. United States Department of State (US DoS). (2011). Commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the OECD on guidelines for multinational enterprises, May 25, 2011. Available from: http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2011/05/164340.htm. (11 January 2017).
  41. Vernon, R. (1971). Sovereignty at Bay. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  42. Weissbrodt, D. (2005). Corporate human rights responsibilities. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, 6(3), 279–297.Google Scholar
  43. Wiebalck, A. (1992). The European economic community code of conduct for companies with interests in South Africa. Roderer: Regensburg.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations