Public performance reporting through global reporting initiatives, integrated reporting and rankings has had a major impact on profiling and the expansion of CSR activities. Founded in 1997, the Global Reporting Initiative encourages companies to report on human rights and gender equality standards. Integrated reporting, where companies prepare their annual financial reports at the same time as their CSR initiatives, is also gaining ground. Rankings such as the Global Initiative for Sustainability Ratings 2011, which set industry benchmarks for CSR, are another form of corporate social responsibility governance. The company not only sanctioned companies as economic entities, but also established the minimum ground rules under which companies should operate and operate. These fundamental rules encompass laws and regulations and in fact reflect the company`s vision of “codified ethics”. They articulate the basic notions of fair business practices as established by federal, state, and local legislators. Companies are required to comply with these laws and regulations as operating conditions. It is no coincidence that compliance officers now occupy an important and high-ranking place in companies` organizational charts. In fulfilling these legal obligations, the important expectations of companies belong to their companies, which want to dedicate themselves to environmental responsibility, can do so in several ways: Before Carroll, definitions of CSR varied. Some were vague, saying companies should simply consider their impact on society.
Others were more focused and explicit about a company`s legal and ethical position. On the one hand, globalization brings challenges that Caroll might not have imagined (for example, foreign direct investment as a percentage of GDP has quadrupled since Carroll`s initial proposal). As a result, many companies operate across borders and in different jurisdictions. Developing countries and some nation states are reluctant to adopt stricter regulations for businesses. This means that multinational companies can meet the legal requirements of a site. However, these legal requirements may not be in line with the morality and legality of any other country/state in which the company operates. Scott Robinson addresses a very topical topic in the CSR discourse: “International Obligations, State Responsibility and Judicial Review under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises”. His research focuses on the OECD Guidelines and the “National Contact Point” (NCP) regime.18 Each OECD member state must establish an NCP within its national system. This NCP is responsible for promoting the Guidelines for Multinationals and resolving issues arising from the OECD Guidelines. Stakeholders may lodge complaints about violations of the OECD Guidelines by companies using the NCP in their country.
An NCP is considered a “state-based alternative complaint mechanism”.19 NCPs from different states are required to cooperate on issues and report regularly. Robinson analyzes the international nature of state responsibility in the creation of an NCP. He submits that this is an obligation of the State. He then refers to various reviews of the functioning of the NCP by the NGO OECD Watch and concludes that this has not been successful.20 Robinson argues that the nature of the commitment of OECD member states to implement an NCP is now relevant, as the question has arisen as to how this obligation can be enforced. He claims that there is no verification mechanism, either at the national or international level. Robinson stresses that States should establish effective and efficient access to judicial and extrajudicial administrative and independent procedures, including remedies and reparations for environmental and human rights damage, even if caused by corporations (the Earth Charter requires this in Rule 13.d).21 Roger Cox`s note (“Urgenda”) is of particular interest to those of us who are concerned about climate change. While scientific evidence suggests that global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must be drastically reduced to prevent dangerous climate change, lawmakers and businesses are still unwilling to take action that could result in the drastic reductions needed. Cox points out that many states have made legal commitments to reduce greenhouse gases.24 The question posed in his case note is whether a European state can be held accountable for not adequately addressing this global problem.
On 20 November 2013, the Dutch NGO Urgenda25 and 886 citizens summoned the Dutch state to hold the Netherlands accountable for its role in dangerous global climate change. The aim of the measure is to obtain an injunction obliging the Dutch state to take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before 2020.