Engaged Buddhists typically voice strong support for human rights, but not everyone is persuaded that Western concepts like ‘rights’ and ‘human rights’ are compatible with Buddhist teachings. While globalization has weakened claims that ‘Asian values’ are radically distinctive, the suspicion lingers that human rights are a ‘Trojan horse’ for hegemonic Western values. Fears are also expressed that the individualism implicit in ‘rights’ promotes egocentricity and conflict rather than selflessness and social cohesion. Here we explore first the conceptual compatibility of human rights with Buddhist teachings, before considering some proposed doctrinal foundations. The conclusion will suggest a way of grounding these different proposals in a common foundation.
Abstract
Ten years after the publication of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), implementation efforts are in full swing. Companies in particular have used their existing corporate social responsibility (CSR) structures to make sense of and implement Pillar II of the UNGPs. This process has led to a co-optation of the business and human rights (BHR) agenda. One manifestation of such co-optation is the instrumentalization of CSR to confront and undermine the growing trend towards binding BHR legislation. Accordingly, this contribution conceptualizes Pillar II implementation as a process of domestication, co-optation and confrontation of the BHR agenda. It makes sense of this process by juxtaposing it with long-standing critique against CSR put forth particularly by critical management scholars, raising the question whether CSR is indeed well-equipped to drive BHR implementation efforts within companies.
This chapter centers on one of the few moments when sexuality emerged as a particular topic of discussion, after an Australian tribune participant, Laurie Bebbington, identified herself as a lesbian feminist. Her intervention inspired lesbian participants at the NGO tribune to hold a series of forums on the importance of sexual recognition. Critics insisted on a zero-sum game in which a host of rights loosely related to sexuality—especially for lesbians, sex workers, and those seeking reproductive autonomy—were seen as coming at the expense of human rights and economic justice in the Third World. Some observers saw IWY as a Trojan horse that smuggled in unacceptable sexual freedoms.
Betting on the Wrong (Trojan) Horse: CSR and the Implementation of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights
