Çok Uluslu Şirketlerin Kontrolünde Ulusal Hükümetlerin İsteksizliği Üzerine Kısa Bir Değerlendirme

Öz

Çok uluslu şirketler küreselleşen dünyanın en önemli ekonomik aktörlerinden. Hatta bunlardan bazıları birçok ülkenin ekonomisi için hayati bir rol oynamakta. Şirketler her ne kadar birçok ülke için önemli ekonomik aktörler olsa da, insanlar üzerinde sayısız olumsuz etkiye sahip. Ancak bu olumsuz etkileri azaltmak üzere yapılacak düzenlemeler ile şirketleri denetlemek çok da kolay değil. Bu şirketlerin çoğu farklı ülkelerdeki iştirakleri veya sahip oldukları karmaşık tedarikçi ağı ile faaliyetlerini ulusal sınırların ötesinde sürdürüyor. Bu durum çok uluslu şirketlerin herhangi bir ulusal/yerel hukuk rejiminin kontrolü altında tutulmasını zorlaştırıyor. Birçok akademik çalışma bu noktada uluslararası bir kontrol sisteminin yokluğuna odaklanmakta. Ama akla gelen başka bir soru bu şirketlerin en azından ulusal düzeyde kontrolünün sağlanıp sağlanamayacağı. Aşağıdaki çalışma bu soruya cevap aramanın yanı sıra ulusal hükümetlerin çok uluslu şirketleri denetlemekte neden isteksiz davrandıklarının normatif bir değerlendirmesini yapıyor.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çok uluslu şirketler,iş yaşamı ve insan hakları,küreselleşme,kurumsal sorumluluk

A Brief Analysis on Why the National Initiatives are Inevitably Insufficient to Curb Multinational Corporations

Öz

Corporations have been named as the key economic actors in the globalised world. Most countries find themselves dominated by major multinational corporations. Even though corporations create many positive outcomes for national economies, they possess a myriad of negative impact on people, especially on employees. Yet, it is not easy to reduce this negative impact via traditional/national regulatory strategies since many such corporations carry out their operations, either directly, or indirectly, through their subsidiaries, doing so across several countries, whilst others conduct their operations in the midst of complex supply chains that are located beyond national borders. This situation makes corporations transnational actors that may not be curbed by any single domestic regulation. However, why do not individual states regulate such companies sufficiently in their own country through the patchwork of domestic regulations? The following paper shall briefly examine why national governments are reluctant to play an active role in terms of corporate regulation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Multinational corporations,business and human rights,globalisation,corporate regulation,corporate responsibility

Kaynakça

1. Accounting Standards Board (ASB), Reporting Standard: Operating and Financial Review (ASB January 2006) accessed 11 July 2016
2. Al-Mahmood SZ, ‘Bangladesh Garment Industry Scrambles to Save Reputation after Fires’ The Guardian (10 January 2013) accessed 28 June 2016
3. Borrus A, Zellner W and Holstein W J, ‘The Stateless Corporations: Forget Multinationals--Today's Giants are Really Leaping Boundaries’ Business Week (14 May 1990)
4. Arthurs H, 'Extraterritoriality by Other Means: How Labor Law Sneaks Across Borders, Conquers Minds, and Controls Workplaces Abroad' (2010) 21 Stanford Law and Policy Review 527
5. Associated Press, ‘Bangladesh Factory Collapse Blamed on Swampy Ground and Heavy Machinery’ The Guardian (23 May 2013) accessed 28 June 2016
6. Bangladesh All Party Parliamentary Group, ‘After Rana Plaza A Report into the Readymade Garment Industry in Bangladesh’ (Parliamentary Liaison Office 2013) accessed 11 July 2016
7. BBC News, ‘Bangladesh Tragedy: UK and Companies 'Must Do More’ (28 April 2013) accessed 10 August 2016
8. Blomström M, ‘Host Country Benefits of Foreign Investment’ (1991) National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Papers Series 3615 accessed 11 July 2016

9. Borensztein E, De Gregorio J and Lee J-W, 'How Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Economic Growth?' (1998) 45 Journal of International Economics 115
10. Botchway GO, 'The Role of Regulation in Social and Environmental Reporting in the UK' (PhD thesis, University of Leeds 2014)
11. Bowcott O, ‘Documents Reveal Extent of Shell and Rio Tinto Lobbying in Human Rights Case’ The Guardian (6 April 2014) accessed 10 August 2016
12. BP Global, ‘BP at a Glance’ accessed 11 August 2016
13. Brodzinsky S, ‘Coca-Cola Boycott Launched after Killings at Colombian Plants’ The Guardian (24 July 2003) accessed 6 July 2016
14. Bunting M, ‘Sweatshops Are Still Supplying High Street Brands’ The Guardian (28 April 2011) accessed 10 August 2016Corporate Responsibility HC Bill (2003-2004) [29]
15. De Jonge A, Transnational Corporations and International Law: Accountability in the Global Business Environment (Edward Elgar Publishing 2011)
16. Department for International Development, ‘The UK has Ramped up Efforts to Improve Safety and Working Conditions in Bangladesh’s Garment Sector since the Rana Plaza Disaster in April 2013’ (A News Article Published under the 2010 to 2015 Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition Government 24 April 2014) accessed 11 August 2016
17. Deva S, 'Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implications for Companies' (2012) 9 European Company Law 101
18. Dine J, Companies, International Trade and Human Rights, vol 4 (Cambridge University Press 2005)
19. Doorey DJ, 'In Defence of Transnational Domestic Labor Regulation' (2010) 42 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 953
20. Frankental P, ‘Yes Minister... It is a Human Rights Issue: The Documents that Show our Government Caved in to Corporate Lobbying’ (Amnesty International UK/Blogs 7 April 2014) accessed 11 August 2016
21. Fransen L and Burgoon B, 'Privatizing or Socializing Corporate Responsibility Business Participation in Voluntary Programs' (2014) 53 Business & Society 583
22. Gale A, ‘27 British Companies are in the World's Top 500’ (Management Today, 22 Jul 2015) accessed 11 August 2016
23. Gomes W, ‘Reason and Responsibility: The Rana Plaza Collapse’ (Open Democracy, 9 May 2013) accessed 11 August 2016
24. Hansmann H and Kraakman R, 'The End of History for Corporate Law' (2001) 89 Georgetown Law Journal 439
25. Hertz N, ‘Why We Must Stay Silent No Longer’ The Guardian (8 April 2001) accessed 10 August 2016
26. Horrigan B, Corporate Social Responsibility in the 21st Century: Debates, Models and Practices Across Government, Law and Business (Edward Elgar Publishing 2010)
27. Gapper J, ‘The Stateless Company Plays a Risky Game, Financial Times (6 January 2016) accessed 11 August 2016
28. Kinley D and Tadaki J, 'From Talk to Walk: The Emergence of Human Rights Responsibilities for Corporations at International Law' (2004) 44 Virginia Journal of International Law 931
29. Koch H, ‘Miserable Working Conditions: Human Rights Group Condemns Computer Manufacturers’ (Spiegel Online, 16 December 2008) accessed 28 June 2016
30. Kolben K, 'Transnational Labor Regulation and the Limits of Governance' (2011) 12 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 403
31. Kolodner E, Transnational Corporations: Impediments or Catalysts of Social development? (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) 1994)
32. Kristof ND, ‘In Praise of the Maligned Sweatshop’ The New York Times (6 June 2006) accessed 10 August 2016
33. London Stock Exchange, ‘Prices and Markets; BP PLC’ accessed 24 August 2016
34. Macalister T, ‘New Rules for Audits Watered down by Lobbyists’ The Guardian (26 November 2004) accessed 10 August 2016
35. Marneffe W and Vereeck L, 'The Meaning of Regulatory Costs' (2011) 32 European Journal of Law and Economics 341
36. McCorquodale R and Simons P, ‘Responsibility Beyond Borders: State Responsibility for Extraterritorial Violations by Corporations of International Human Rights Law’ (2007) 70 The Modern Law Review 598
37. Mujih E, Regulating Multinationals in Developing Countries: A Conceptual and Legal Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility (Ashgate Publishing Group 2012)
38. Myerson AR, ‘In Principle, a Case for More 'Sweatshops’ The New York Times (22 June 1997) accessed 10 August 2016
39. Ratner SR, 'Corporations and Human Rights: A Theory of Legal Responsibility' (2001) 111 The Yale Law Journal 443
40. Reich R, ‘Who Is Us?’ (Harvard Business Review, January–February 1990)
41. Reuters, ‘Apple Linked to Child Labor: Report’ (19 January 2016) accessed 18 July 2016
42. Roach B, ‘Corporate Power in a Global Economy’ (Global Development and Environment Institute (GDAE), Tufts University 2007) 13 accessed 9 September 2016
43. Rowbottom N and Schroeder M, 'The Rise and Fall of the UK Operating and Financial Review' (2014) 27 Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 655
44. Ruggie JG, 'Business and Human Rights: The Evolving International Agenda' (2007) 101 American Journal of International Law 819
45. Sabel C, Archon Fung and Dara O'Rourke, 'Ratcheting Labor Standards: Regulation for Continuous Improvement in the Global Workplace' (2000) John F Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Faculty Research Working Papers Series 00-010 accessed 12 July 2016 Seck SL, 'Unilateral Home State Regulation: Imperialism or Tool for Subaltern Resistance?' (2008) 46 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 565
46. Shaw R, Reclaiming America: Nike, Clean Air, and the New National Activism (University of California Press 1999)
47. Skinner G, McCorquodale R and Schutter OD, ‘The Third Pillar: Access to Judicial Remedies for Human Rights Violations by Transnational Business’ (The International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR), CORE, and the European Coalition for Corporate Justice (ECCJ) December 2013) 18 accessed 11 August 2016
48. Stiglitz JE, 'Regulating Multinational Corporations: Towards Principles of Cross-Border Legal Frameworks in a Globalized World Balancing Rights with Responsibilities' (2007) 23 American University International Law Review 451
49. Texaco UK (Valero Energy Ltd), ‘About Us‘ accessed 11 August 2016
50. Transparency International, ‘The Readymade Garment Sector: Governance Problems and Way Forward’ (October 2013) accessed 11 July 2016
51. Tully S, Corporations and International Lawmaking (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2007)
52. UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) ‘Working Document on the Impact of the Activities of Transnational Corporations on the Realization of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (10 June 1998) UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/6
53. UNCHR (Sub-Commission), ‘Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights’ (26 August 2003) UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2
54. —— (Sub-Commission), ‘The Impact of the Activities and Working Methods of Transnational Corporations on the Full Enjoyment of all Human Rights, in Particular Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Right to Development, Bearing in Mind Existing International Guidelines, Rules and Standards Relating to the Subject-Matter’ (2 July 1996) UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/1996/12
55. United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Res 2131 (XX) (21 December 1965) UN Doc A/RES/20/2131
56. Voon T, 'Multinational Enterprises and State Sovereignty under International Law' (1999) 21 Adelaide Law Review 219
57. Westfield E, 'Globalization, Governance, and Multinational Enterprise Responsibility: Corporate Codes of Conduct in the 21st Century' (2002) 42 Virginia Journal of International Law 1075
58. Winter B, ‘Documents Suggest Foreign Automakers Aided Brazil’s Dictators’ (Reuters, 5 August 2014) accessed 10 August 2016
59. Zerk JA, Multinationals and Corporate Social Responsibility: Limitations and Opportunities in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2006)