Should Corporations Have a Say in Human Rights?Rethinking Responsibility in the Age of Corporate Power
As global corporations grow in influence, the question of their role in protecting or promoting human rights becomes increasingly urgent. While states remain the primary duty bearers under international law, corporations,through supply chains, labor practices, and political advocacy,affect the lives and rights of millions. This article explores whether corporations should have a say in human rights, examining both normative expectations and practical challenges. Drawing on recent literature and the evolving notion of corporate human rights responsibility, the paper argues that corporations not only have the capacity to affect human rights outcomes but also a growing obligation,both ethical and strategic,to engage with human rights discourse and practice. The idea that corporations should concern themselves with human rights was once seen as the domain of corporate social responsibility (CSR),a voluntary, often philanthropic gesture beyond core business operations. However, the increasing prominence of corporate sociopolitical activism has blurred the lines between ethical engagement and strategic positioning. Companies today are not only reacting to human rights issues but often taking public stances on them, shaping debates around climate justice, racial equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and global labor standards. This shift raises a fundamental question: should corporations have a say in human rights,and if so, what kind of say?
From a legal perspective, states are the primary duty bearers under international human rights law, as enshrined in frameworks such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). Yet, the transnational nature of global capitalism means that corporations increasingly operate in spaces where state authority is weak, contested, or complicit in rights abuses. In these contexts, corporate silence can enable harm, while action can drive change. The United Nations’ Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011), also known as the Ruggie Principles, explicitly recognize this by establishing a "responsibility to respect" human rights as a baseline standard for all companies. In Corporate Human Rights Responsibility: A Comparative Analysis, Wettstein (2010) explores the extent to which businesses should be held accountable for human rights performance across jurisdictions. Published in Human Rights Review, the article critiques the traditional division of labor between states and firms, arguing that the structural power of corporations necessitates a rethinking of responsibility. Wettstein proposes that firms should not only avoid violating human rights but should also actively support their realization when they operate in contexts of systemic injustice or institutional failure (DOI: 10.1007/s12142-010-0163-4).
This argument is increasingly reflected in practice. Major corporations like Nike, Ben & Jerry’s, and Unilever have issued public statements supporting movements such as Black Lives Matter or advocating for refugee protections. While such actions may stem partly from internal values or leadership convictions, they are often strategic responses to stakeholder expectations. Consumers, employees, and investors now scrutinize not only what companies sell but what they stand for. Engaging with human rights can thus enhance brand reputation, employee retention, and long-term market positioning. However, corporate engagement in human rights is not without risks or contradictions. Critics argue that such activism can be superficial or selective,focused on high-visibility issues in the Global North while neglecting supply chain abuses in the Global South. Others warn of corporate overreach, where firms may impose their own moral frameworks in ways that undermine local sovereignty or democratic deliberation. This concern is especially salient when large technology platforms, for example, take positions on content moderation, privacy, or surveillance that have real-world consequences for civil liberties and public discourse.
The legitimacy of corporate voices in human rights debates depends heavily on the internal consistency of their practices. A company that promotes gender equity in advertising but tolerates workplace harassment, or one that advocates climate justice while financing fossil fuel expansion, risks being accused of hypocrisy or "woke-washing." As such, meaningful engagement requires not only external messaging but internal accountability mechanisms, such as human rights due diligence, impact assessments, and grievance procedures. Despite these challenges, the corporate role in human rights cannot be dismissed. In many parts of the world, companies are among the few actors with the resources, visibility, and influence to address systemic abuses. Whether through pressure on suppliers to eliminate child labor, advocacy for fair immigration policy, or support for inclusive workplace practices, corporations have both the opportunity and the responsibility to contribute to a rights-respecting global order.Corporations should have a say in human rights,but that say must be grounded in legitimacy, consistency, and accountability. As power shifts increasingly from governments to global firms, the boundaries of human rights responsibility must evolve accordingly. For students, policymakers, and future business leaders, understanding this shift is essential for ensuring that corporate engagement strengthens rather than undermines the pursuit of justice and human dignity.
References
Wettstein, F. (2010). Corporate Human Rights Responsibility: A Comparative Analysis. Human Rights Review, 11(2), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-010-0163-4
United Nations Human Rights Council. (2011). Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework. Geneva: OHCHR.
Ruggie, J. G. (2004). Reconstituting the Global Public Domain,Issues, Actors, and Practices. European Journal of International Relations, 10(4), 499–531.
Financial Times. (2020). Nike, Ben & Jerry’s and the New Age of Corporate Activism. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com
Reuters. (2021). How Global Companies Are Responding to Human Rights Challenges. Retrieved fromhttps://www.reuters.com
