Document Type

Article

Disciplines

International Law

Abstract

An analysis of human rights practices in various countries reveals an interesting paradox: the loudest cry for human rights resounds most clearly in those countries that ignore human rights. Conversely, countries that are the least likely to commit human rights violations are those that have exerted the greatest effort to protect human rights. Multinational corporations, many of which are stronger and wealthier than a majority of governments, ' stand by idly as governments unsuccessfully struggle to defend human rights. Too often, both human rights activists as well as multinational corporations alike ignore the pivotal role that multinational corporations can play in protecting human rights. Favorable working conditions, adequate pay, and freedom from discrimination are only some of the many human rights over which corporations have direct control.2 Moreover, by developing labor standards, multinational corporations can promote peace, lessen the negative effects of international market competition, and develop a country's economic and human resources.

Codes of conduct are one means by which corporations can regulate their conduct.' The codes are drafted by each corporation individually, but are generally modeled upon existing international human rights standards. Although codes differ in their provisions, they usually include proposals for corporate action with regard to employees, the community, and the environment. For instance, a code of conduct might state that a corporation bans all child labor, forced labor, and gender or racial discrimination in the workplace. At the same time, it might also state that the corporation pledges to support the environment by making contributions to local environmental groups. These codes of conduct play a critical role in the human rights movement because they make multinational corporations directly accountable for their actions.

Despite the fact that corporations generally experience a marked increase in profits and an improved corporate image as a result of adopting codes of conduct,6 only a small number of multinational corporations have in fact adopted codes of conduct.7 One survey of 150 multinational corporations found that only twenty-five had codes of conduct.' A 1993 survey revealed that fewer than five percent of U.S. multinational corporations had developed codes of conduct,9 while a later survey indicated that the number had increased to almost ten percent.

Because the meaning of human rights changes according to cultural or ethnic views, a uniform standard is necessary to protect human rights. Section II of this Comment provides an overview of codes of conduct. It will suggest that although codes of conduct have certain advantages, they are nevertheless inadequate because of the insurmountable challenges connected with the actual drafting of codes" and with ensuring their credibility.'2 It will then use the example of Russia, and, in particular, the role of the U.S.-Russia Code of Business Conduct (U.S.-Russia Code) 3 to show the promotion of human rights in Russia." Additionally, this Section will discuss impediments to implementation of codes of conduct. It will conclude that because Russia remains severely hampered by corruption, the U.S.- Russia Code is an ineffective means of achieving a human rights standard." Section III discusses additional human rights initiatives in Russia, such as the Declaration of Integrity in Business Conduct (the Declaration).' Finally, Section IV summarizes the inadequacies of codes of conduct and proposes that the only means of achieving an effective human rights standard is by cultivating a standard based on international human rights law.

Accessibility Requirements

1

Download

Share

COinS