scholarly journals From 'Do No Harm' to Doing More Good: Extending the UN Framework to Connect Political CSR with Business Responsibilities for Human Rights

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas Jonsson ◽  
Mette Fisker ◽  
Karin Buhmann
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Do No Harm ◽  
Political Csr

scholarly journals Do no harm and do more good too: connecting the SDGs with business and human rights and political CSR theory

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 389-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin Buhmann ◽  
Jonas Jonsson ◽  
Mette Fisker
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Societal Needs ◽  
Do No Harm ◽  
Political Csr ◽  
Political Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Development Goals ◽  
Corporate Social

Purpose This paper aims to explain how companies can benefit from their human rights due diligence process to identify opportunities for sustainable development goals (SDGs) activities in an operationalisation of political corporate social responsibility (PCSR). Design/methodology/approach Combining PCSR, SDGs and business and human rights (BHR) literature, the paper develops an extension of the risk-based due diligence process described by the BHR literature, helping companies identify societal needs to which they may contribute in accordance with PCSR through engaging in the SDGs. Findings Companies can benefit from resources they already invest in due diligence to identify their adverse human rights impacts, by drawing on the insights gained on broader needs, including human rights, to which they may contribute. This can help them develop appropriate interventions to address local needs and advance their moral legitimacy through assisting in SDG-relevant fulfilment of human rights. Research limitations/implications The paper provides theory-based guidance on how companies can assess their capacity for contributing societal value through human rights-oriented SDG interventions. Future empirical research may explore how companies apply the extended due diligence process to assess needs and determine relevant actions. Practical implications The paper offers a principle-based analytical approach for integrating the “do no harm” imperative of BHR theory with PCSR’s call for business assistance in the delivery of public goods and the SDGs’ call for business action to “do good’. Social implications This paper enables enhanced business implementation of the SDGs in line with PCSR and human rights theory, especially the emergent field of business and human rights. Originality/value This study gives theory-based guidance for companies for SDG contributions based on innovative combination of literatures.

International Criminal Prosecution of Physicians: A Critique of Professors Annas and Grodin's Proposed International Medical Tribunal

2004 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 419-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Mason Meier
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Medical Knowledge ◽  
International Medical ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Physician Participation ◽  
Do No Harm

Society benefits from physicians who seek truth and healing for the good of humanity. Despite ethical admonishments to “do no harm,” however, physicians have caused some of the most appalling human rights abuses of the twentieth century. Physicians, alone or in concert with the state, have willfully abused their medical knowledge and debauched their profession in furtherance of human rights violations. Compounding their crimes, physicians often have been complicit in following oppressive regimes in abusive practices against their citizens. Ironically, it is their knowledge of this healing art that allows physicians to take part in this injurious conduct; and it is this knowledge that states seek to harness in buttressing violative policies. In fact, for nations bent on violating human rights, it is “much easier for governments to adopt inherently evil and destructive policies if they are aided by the patina of legitimacy that physician participation provides.”

Person – Centered Perspective in the Madrid Declaration

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 266-269
Author(s):  
George Christodoulou ◽  
Angeliki Christodoulou
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Personal Values ◽  
Therapeutic Process ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Psychiatric Practice ◽  
Do No Harm ◽  
The World ◽  
Ethical Stance ◽  
Person Centered Approach

Principles of ethics are more important than rules, declarations and codes for a variety of reasons but basically because it is the principles that provide the basis for the latter and determine the ethical stance of each individual practitioner through whom the rules, declarations and codes are filtered. The essence of the above conclusion is reflected in the preamble of the Madrid Declaration, the ethical code of the World Psychiatric Association, where the psychiatrist’s individual sense of responsibility is identified as the basis of ethical practice.Ethical psychiatric practice (as described or implied in the Madrid Declaration and in other similar texts) is personified par excellence. Yet, there are certain parts of the Declaration that are more relevant to the person-centered approach. These are the following:Paragraph 1. Advocating therapeutic interventions that are least restrictive to the freedom of the patient.Paragraph 3. Suggesting that the patient be accepted as a partner by right in the therapeutic process. Empowering the patient to make informed decisions on the basis of one’s personal values and preferences.Paragraph 4. Safeguarding the dignity and human rights of the patient.Paragraph 5. Informing the patient about the purpose of an assessment (especially if the psychiatrist is involved in third-party situations).Paragraph 6. Safeguarding the privacy of information obtained through the therapeutic relationship.Paragraph 7. Safeguarding the autonomy and physical and mental integrity of the patient in research.The two person-centered ethics principles that are prominently highlighted in the Madrid Declaration are the principle of autonomy and the Hippocratic principle of “do no harm”.

Beyond “Do No Harm:” Corporations, Human Rights, and Activism

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
pp. 17304
Author(s):  
Rita Mota ◽  
Alan D. Morrison
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Do No Harm

scholarly journals What is the responsibility to respect human rights? Reconsidering the ‘respect, protect, and fulfill’ framework

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Jason Karp
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Theoretical Argument ◽  
Political Responsibility ◽  
Human Rights Practice ◽  
Do No Harm ◽  
New Meanings ◽  
The Us ◽  
Mexico Border

AbstractThe world's understanding of the action needed to advance human rights is deeply structured by the ‘respect, protect, and fulfill’ framework. But its potential is significantly undermined by a narrow conception of ‘respect’ for human rights. This paper systematically addresses these weaknesses and advances an original alternative. It first provides a historical account of the ‘do no harm’ conception of ‘respect’ in the political context of the late Cold War. It then analyzes this conception's empirical functioning today, using the example of unauthorized migration along the US–Mexico border. These points illustrate an overarching theoretical argument: the responsibility to respect human rights should be based on a responsibility not to dehumanize, rather than exclusively on a duty to do no harm. This involves the consideration of each person as a moral equal, the elevation of human rights practice as a basis for judgment inside of a moral agent's self, and the rejection of state-centrism as the basis for all political responsibility. This argument has implications traversing the theory and practice of human rights, including: the ability to translate and embed into practice the new meanings of ‘respect,’ ‘protect,’ and ‘fulfill’; and the need to re-consider the contemporary significance of 1980s liberalism.

Global Justice and International Business

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis G. Arnold
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
International Business ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Political Csr ◽  
Satisfactory Account ◽  
Business Enterprises ◽  
Governance Institutions

ABSTRACT:Little theoretical attention has been paid to the question of what obligations corporations and other business enterprises have to the four billion people living at the base of the global economic pyramid. This article makes several theoretical contributions to this topic. First, it is argued that corporations are properly understood as agents of global justice. Second, the legitimacy of global governance institutions and the legitimacy of corporations and other business enterprises are distinguished. Third, it is argued that a deliberative democracy model of corporate legitimacy defended by theorists of political CSR is unsatisfactory. Fourth, it is argued that a Rawlsian theoretical framework fails to provide a satisfactory account of the obligations of corporations regarding global justice. Finally, an ethical conception of CSR grounded in an appropriately modest set of duties tied to corporate relationships is then defended. This position is cosmopolitan in scope and grounded in overlapping arguments for human rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document