1

Multinational Corporations: Making Dollars (and Sense) by

Showing Respect for Environmental, Human and Labor Rights Issues

Author: Charles A. Laffiteau

Abstract

In an increasing globalised world economy, Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) have been
accelerating their push to shift production of their goods and services from higher cost
developed countries to more economically attractive labour markets in the developing world.
Developing countries are attractive not only from the standpoint of lower wages, but also
because they often lack the means and or the political will to hold businesses accountable for
violations of these nations respective environmental, human and labour rights regulation
regimes. However, the growth and globalization of Human, labour and environmental rights
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) has recently begun to act as a counterbalance and
hold MNCs accountable for violating those norms. As a consequence, MNCs that
demonstrate a lack of respect for environmental, human and labor rights will eventually feel
an impact on their bottom line, especially if one looks at the cumulative effect of avoiding
such responsibilities over a period of years. In Part I, this paper seeks to delineate how, and in
what areas of its business, offending MNCs might expect to experience adverse economic
impacts in the future. Said analysis is based largely on the negative consequences that have
already been suffered by various MNCs in a wide variety of different industries. Part II of
this paper examines the growth and development of the NGO community as well as
international norms dealing with human, labour and environmental rights around the world. It
also explores the emergence of corporate social responsibility (CSR) agreements designed to
function as a non-state actor global business governance regime. In Part III, this paper
concludes with an alternative strategy as well as some other methods Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) might wish to consider if they want to be successful persuading MNCs
to show greater respect for environmental, human and environmental rights concerns within
their respective workplaces. By using these alternative strategies and methods NGOs can also
positively rather than negatively impact many MNCs long term profitability in the process.

Introduction

Some business scholars contend that a lack of respect for environmental, human and
labor rights will eventually have a negative impact on the multinational corporation's (MNCs)
bottom line, especially if one looks at the cumulative effect of avoiding such responsibilities
over a period of years. Therefore the purpose of this paper is to answer the research question;
Do MNCs suffer financially if they chose to evade or ignore international norms or national
laws designed to protect human and labor rights as well as the local environment? I will
2

endeavor to answer this question by delineating how, and in what areas of its business, the
multinational will experience these adverse economic consequences. I will then suggest some
alternative methods Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) might wish to use, if they
want to be successful persuading MNCs to show greater respect for human rights issues
within their respective workplaces and, by doing so, increase their long term profitability.
All too often, well meaning human rights advocates get so caught up in their rhetoric,
that they loose sight of their goal(s). The primary goal is to persuade multinationals to
demonstrate support for human rights as a means to foster greater respect for human rights by
the host national governments within the countries they operate in. Money talks and this is
what the multinational brings to the table, when it is discussing direct or indirect foreign
investments with various national governments around the world. "Studies show a positive
correlation between the presence of MNCs and economic, political and social rights as well as
civil liberties in the third world."
1

Part I
Human rights advocates will always have a hard time persuading developing countries
to show greater respect for individual human or labor rights, so long as their governments are
struggling to ensure that their people have adequate food, clothing and shelter. The focus of
these governments is on how to grow their economies in order to meet those basic needs. If an
individuals human or labor rights get trampled in the process, they see this as the price one
must pay in order to reach the more important goal of providing for the individual's basic
human needs. The multinational is in the best position to help those governments address their
primary concerns, so it is also in the best position to influence or persuade those nations to

1
William H. Meyer, "Human rights and MNCs: theory versus quantitative analysis" Human Rights
Quarterly, (May 1996): 377
3

show greater respect for individual human and labor rights. Often times corporate personnel
policies, which determine the way a growing business enterprise treats its employees, can be a
powerful influence on the surrounding communities and thus on the national government. The
MNC can approach a government with offers of economic development and investment
capital, provided that government agrees to respect the MNC's need to protect its image in
other countries where it also does business. The MNC can explain that they are not judging
that particular government on this issue, but that they are just dealing with the realities of
doing business in a global marketplace. "This is nothing personal, its just business."
How then do we show the multinational player, that it makes dollars (and sense) for
them to be proactive in their human resources conduct by paying close attention to human
rights issues in those countries where they have or plan to have operations? For starters, let us
look at what it can cost a corporation when it isn't proactive in dealing with human rights
concerns. "From its very beginning, Nike did not own any of its manufacturing factories.
Instead, it specialized in product design and manufacturing."
2

This method of operating, where manufacturing is outsourced to lower cost
manufacturing operations at home or abroad, has become an increasingly popular model used
by domestic and multinational companies over the last 20 years. It has many advantages for
companies, which derive a large percentage of their business revenues from the sale of goods
under their corporate brand(s). Chief among them is that these companies don't have to spend
substantial sums of money building and maintaining capital intensive, manufacturing plants.
Companies, which historically were vertically integrated (owning their own manufacturing
and production facilities), such as IBM have also adopted or begun to adopt this model in

2
S. Prakesh Sethi, Setting Global Standards (Hoboken NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2003): 152

4

recent years. Nike failed, initially, to anticipate the problems attendant to outsourcing to the
lowest cost provider and when it did become aware of the problem, it failed to address the
issue in a timely and judicious manner. The majority of the vendors selected to produce Nike
shoes and equipment (outside of the US) contracted most or all of their factories' production
capacity exclusively to Nike. "They are totally dependent on Nike, and the company has
enormous leverage on these plant's owners".
3
Most, if not all, of these suppliers would have
changed their labor practices in very short order, had Nike been willing to accept the
increased cost of production due to these changes.
Problems first arose as an outgrowth of Nike's ongoing search for lower production
costs. After Nike had shifted most of its production from Japan, Taiwan and Korea to China
and Indonesia, human rights groups and the media started to investigate and raise questions
about the business practices of some of Nike's production partners. Nike tried to ignore these
criticisms at first, claiming it had no control over its business partners. Then Nike tried to
burnish its image by hiring former UN Ambassador Andrew Young, to act as a spokesperson
and ombudsman dealing with the issue on its behalf. Nike also increased advertising
expenditures in a vain attempt to use its public relations muscle to counter its critics. Nike
tried everything it could think of to put the issue to bed except one. It failed to use its
considerable leverage on its partners to force them to change their "sweatshop" practices. The
end result of Nike's defensive, reactionary strategy in dealing with the "sweatshop" criticisms
was felt where it hurts a multinational most, on the bottom line.
Nike's image was seriously tarnished by the criticisms and its own lack of concrete
action to address the problem with its suppliers. "Nike was no longer cool, and its sales (and
its stock) took a plunge in 1998 and 1999, by which time Nike had become the poster boy of

3
Sethi: 172
5

sweatshop outsourcing."
4
By then Nike started to realize that it had a serious problem on its
hands and no amount of public relations or advertising dollars was enough to overcome it. So
it made further revisions to its Corporate Code of Conduct and took the first steps aimed at
bringing its vendors into synch, as regards working conditions in its factories. Once again it
was too little, too late. The public wanted to see more serious and concrete actions, as well as
evidence that Nike's suppliers were complying. Finally, "Nike established a full-fledged
corporate compliance department which currently (2003) has 58 people, including 12 people
at the head office."
5
Many of these "corporate overhead" costs (as well as increased media
expenses) could have been avoided, had Nike done a better job of assessing how its lower
production costs were being achieved, prior to changing suppliers. How many millions in
sales and profits (not to mention shareholder value) has Nike lost over the last decade due to
its tarnished public image? Just ask any long term investors who have owned the stock since
1988. Nike's experience should serve as a lesson to multinational corporations as regards the
risks and the costs associated with pleading that they have little or no control over human
rights issues in countries where they do business. Nike's image, sales and stock price are still
suffering from the after effects of their earlier decisions to ignore or soft pedal human rights
concerns at home and abroad. Instead of focusing exclusively on the benefits of lower
production costs, it would have been much more cost effective (long term) to use their
leverage over their suppliers to force compliance with human rights standards, and accept the
minor increase in production costs which would have resulted. Nike has now taken the correct
approach in dealing with this issue, but they were ten years and hundreds of millions of
dollars too late.

4
Sethi: 152
5
Sethi: 167
6

The key to use, to open doors and deal with multinationals on the issue of human
rights, is to cite the long-term costs and risks associated with a short-term production cost
driven strategy, which ignores the costs associated with looking the other way on human
rights issues. "MNCs face complex challenges in establishing and maintaining legitimacy, or
their license to operate, across many host countries with differing social and cultural norms
and values."
6
They cannot afford to have their images tarnished in markets where consumers
have alternative choices (such as Reebok and Addidas) available to them, which are price
competitive with their own brands, or they will suffer the same consequences that Nike has.
MNCs need to be proactive in their approach to human rights issues in the developing world,
so they can avoid the stigma of being more concerned with profits than with human beings.
Legitimacy contributes to firms' survival and prosperity by reducing costs associated with
stakeholder conflict and improving long term sustainability and employee satisfaction."
7

Stakeholders include MNC suppliers, shareholders, employees as well as the consumers who
buy its products or services.
There is a simple formula that explains what it takes to satisfy MNCs (or any
companys) stakeholders. In a chat I had with Herb Kelleher, former CEO of Southwest
Airlines, he told me that the following was his formula for running a successful business:
Employees (yours or those of your suppliers) who enjoy a supportive work environment
have higher productivity, produce higher quality goods or services and do a much better job
of taking care of the customer. This in turn, results in customers who are pleased with their
supplier or service provider and look forward to doing business with the company again. This

6
Leeora D. Black, Charmine E. J. Hartel, "The five capabilities of socially responsible companies", Journal of
Public Affairs (Wiley) (May 2004): 125
7
P. Bansal and K. Roth, "Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness", Academy of
Management Journal Vol. 43 No. 4 (2000): 726
7

leads to increased sales and profits for the company, which means its shareholders and
investors are going to be happy. But the entire process of customer satisfaction begins and
ends with your employees so you need to focus on taking care of them first.
8

There are other consequences, which can occur due to a lack of sensitivity to human
rights concerns. MNCs can avoid litigation and proxy contest costs associated with fighting
shareholder resolutions ("by 1990 over five hundred shareholder resolutions had been
presented to over ninety companies with operations in South Africa."
9
), which embroiled
companies doing business in South Africa during the years of apartheid. "Between 1984 and
1990 over 200 U .S. companies withdrew from South Africa after intense pressure from
critics at home."
10
But these companies did not receive much public
credit or public relations value from their actions, because they were viewed as simply doing
so as a reaction to public outrage, rather than being viewed as progressive companies taking a
stand on principles by addressing legitimate human rights abuses.
Lawsuits filed in U.S. courts on behalf of foreign citizens are a new and growing
concern for many multinationals. In 1984, Union Carbide experienced an industrial accident
at one of its foreign subsidiaries chemical plants in Bhopal, India, killing more than 2,000
people and injuring over 200,000 other Indian citizens. "Attorneys for the victims pushed for
a U.S. trial, but a U.S. judge finally ruled that the trial should be held in India on the condition
that Union Carbide submitted to discovery under United States legal principles."
11
The case
dragged on for several years with Union Carbide claiming that the gas leak was the result of
employee sabotage. Then the Indian government filed criminal charges against Union Carbide

8
Interview with Herb Kelleher (6 May,!999)
9
Oliver F. Williams, Global Codes of Conduct: an idea whose time has come, ( Notre Dame: University of
Notre Dame Press, 2000): 80
10
Williams: 57
11
Thomas Donaldson, The Ethics of International Business (New York: Oxford University Press 1989):111
8

executives, blaming lax safety procedures at the plant for the disaster. "Finally, on February
14, 1989, the Indian government announced the settlement of claims against Union Carbide.
Union Carbide agreed to pay $470 million to the Indian government and in return, India
agreed to drop criminal charges."
12
Prior to the settlement, Union Carbide executives had
been afraid to travel abroad for fear of being arrested and handed over to India to face
criminal charges. "Throughout, Union Carbide's image has suffered at the hands of a skeptical
public."
13
The expenses associated with this chemical accident dwarfed whatever additional
profits Union Carbide may have realized, as the result of locating its insecticide plant in a
lower cost developing country. The controls, training for employees, safety procedures and
maintenance, which are required by government regulations at Union Carbide plants in the
U.S., probably could have prevented this disaster from ever happening. The company's
disregard for the risks they were taking with the environment as well as the health and lives of
their workers and Indian families, stand as a testament to MNC abuses in pursuit of corporate
profits. Hopefully it will also serve as a cautionary lesson to other multinationals around the
world. Corporations that focus on lower production costs (regardless of how this is being
achieved), need to be questioned by savvy investors as to whether they have set aside
adequate "reserves" to pay for the consequences of such behavior. A legitimate business
strategy must include assessing what the potential financial liability will be if things don't go
according to plan.
More recently Unocal was taken to court in the United States under the Alien Tort
Claims Act, for its part in human and labor rights violations, which occurred during the
building of a natural gas pipeline for a minority owned subsidiary in Myanmar. While Unocal

12
"Damages for a Deadly Cloud", Time, (February 27, 1989): 53
13
Donaldson: 111
9

did not direct or take part in the human rights violations, it had been warned by an advisor
in1992 (prior to the beginning of construction) that "throughout Burma, the government
habitually makes use of forced labor. Later as the pipeline was being built, the same advisor
told Unocal that forced labor, forced relocation of villagers and arbitrary killings by the
military were occurring along the pipeline route."
14
This lawsuit, filed on behalf of some
villagers in Myanmar by attorneys for a NGO called the International Labor Rights Fund,
represents a watershed event in the history of litigation by various NGOs against
multinational corporations. "The Alien Tort Claims Act was drafted in 1789 to deal with
piracy and to permit sailors press-ganged into the British Navy to sue Britain in American
courts.
15
As a result, MNCs which had previously used ignorance or claims that they had no
control over national governments and their business partners, are now confronted with the
possibility of financial liability for their partners human and labor rights violations.
Part II
"Over the past 20 years, hundreds of human rights NGOs have been formed to
document and publicize abuses and proselytize for legal change."
16
Bad publicity is one thing,
but financial liability for another governments' human rights abuses was something Unocal
and other MNCs had never anticipated prior to this lawsuit. This new avenue of litigation
represents a new option for NGOs, which they can use to help persuade multinationals to step
up and be more proactive in dealing with host country governments on human rights issues.
MNCs can now explain to their hosts that this is another reason why they most show respect
for environmental, human and labor rights and curtail abuses if they want to do business. Its

14
Joshua Kurlantzick, "Taking Multinationals to Court: How the Alien Tort Claims Act Promotes Human
Rights," World Policy .Journal, (Spring 2004): 60
15
Kurlantzick: 61
16
David Manasian, "The power of publicity", Economist (12/05/98): 13
10

not because they care so much about the environment or the victims of these abuses, but
rather they have a fear of the financial consequences of ignoring such abuses.
"Today multinationals are under pressure as never before to justify their dealings with
abusive regimes and their treatment of employees in developing countries. Firms used to
brush off criticism, saying they had no control over third-world suppliers, and or that politics
was none of their business. This is no longer good enough."
17
But MNCs still have a desire to
do business with stable regimes, be they democratic or authoritarian. They want assurances
that contracts will be honored and that there is some semblance of the rule of law. They also
want assurances that expatriate employees and their families will be safe. The resources that
they need, to produce and provide goods or services to their customers are often in unstable
and dangerous areas of the world. Authoritarian governments have found that foreign
investors show a strong preference for the stable environment that they can provide. A logical
connection emerges between political authoritarianism and the promotion of economic growth
(as opposed to economic development) through foreign investment."
18
The reality for MNCs
is that democracies in the developing world are rarely very stable, which in turn makes
countries under authoritarian rule more attractive alternatives for the multinational
corporation.
Some critics will say that multinationals are really not in the best position to press
governments to show greater respect for environmental, human and labor rights. They would
argue that this is the job of the United Nations or maybe even the WTO. While these
organizations may have a role to play in making a case for greater respect for human rights,
they have some inherent limitations, which hinder their effectiveness. The United Nations is a

17
Manasian: 14
18
Conway W. Henderson, "Multinational Corporations and Human Rights in Developing States", World Affairs,
(Summer 79): 27
11

forum for all countries throughout the world, whose primary mission is to keep the peace
while protecting and safeguarding the sovereignty of its member states. It is not in the
business of telling member states how to conduct their domestic or internal affairs, but rather
their dealings with other member states. "The Global Compact (developed by the United
Nations) has had various successes. But the objections raised by NGOs that the compact is
toothless, and allows multinationals to gain favorable publicity without actually improving
their behavior has merit, too.
19
Nonetheless, the very fact that MNCs are signing up to the
principles of the UN's Global Compact, shows that they are becoming evermore sensitive to
the financial consequences of being viewed as human rights "apologists" rather than
"advocates".
Is the WTO a more viable avenue to use in pressing for enforcement of environmental,
human and labor rights? The mission of the WTO is even more narrowly focused (than the
United Nations) on promoting trade and encouraging its members to reduce tariffs and other
impediments to trade between its members. Critics say that it promotes the use of cheap labor
in the developing world by companies in the developed world with its emphasis on opening
markets in all countries around the world. "This criticism of the WTO is unfair to the extent
that the organization was never intended to monitor human rights or labor standards."
20
To
remain effective in its attempts to eliminate trade barriers between its member states, the
WTO cannot afford to lecture them on environmental, human and labor rights. Doing so
would only serve to harden the positions of many of the developing countries involved in the
Doha Round of WTO negotiations, which are currently at an impasse over farm subsidies.
Environmental, human and labor rights NGOs are the special interest groups in the

19
Daniel Litvin, "Memo to the President. Foreign Policy (Nov/Dec 2003): 70
20
Kent Jones, Who's Afraid of the WTO? (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2004): 126
12

best position to persuade multinationals to adopt and adhere to basic environmental, human
and labor rights standards as apart of their respective Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
guidelines. These NGOs can then monitor the MNCs compliance and publicize their failures
when the need to do so is called for. A variety of different strategies can be employed by
human rights NGOs to influence the behavior of multinational corporations.
21
To be
successful in achieving their goals of greater respect for human rights, NGOs will have to
change their mindset. They need to look at the MNCs the way a salesperson views a potential
customer or sales distributor. A salesperson looks for ways to persuade the customer or sales
partner to buy. Salespeople show the customers how they will benefit or profit from buying
whatever it is they have to offer. They do not threaten their customer's business interests;
rather they seek to become "partners" in their customer's overall business success.
Bono's recent RED "partnerships" with Motorola, Gap, Converse, American Express
and Armani are good examples of this type of strategy in action. These MNCs believe that
they will benefit from these partnerships with Bono by burnishing their corporate images with
the buying public. This will result in increased sales (and profits) for their other goods and
services, which are not directly linked to the RED promotion. In turn, Bono is increasing
public awareness of the myriad of problems in Africa, while also raising money to address
those issues through the sales of specific goods and services to concerned consumers in other
parts of the world.
Multinationals are potential change agents in those countries which have been
identified as places where environmental, human or labor rights abuses are occurring. All too
often rights activists view multinationals as the enemy. The tactics they use put the MNCs on

21
Morton Winston, "NGO Strategies for Promoting Corporate Social Responsibility", Ethics and International
Affairs Vol. 16 (2002): 76

13

the defensive and engender greater resistance instead of increased cooperation. The MNCs
tend to view shareholder environmental, human and labor rights resolutions as a nuisance and
an obstacle that they have to overcome. Litigation, or the threat of it, is much more effective if
it is only used as a last resort, when all other methods of persuasion have failed. Showing the
MNC how it can open windows to new markets by making a deal with you is an infinitely
more effective approach.
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has recently struck an environmental agreement
with Asia Pacific Resources International Holdings L TD. (April), by acknowledging the
merits of this type of approach. April has agreed to protect some valuable rainforests in
Indonesia from logging in order to open up new market opportunities for its pulp products
with companies like Proctor & Gamble (which would not previously consider buying from
April because of its bad reputation with environmentalists). In return, the WWF received
strong guarantees of protection, from both legal and illegal logging, for one of the last stands
of ecologically valuable rainforest in Indonesia.
Part III
In 1995 Ray Anderson, the Chairman and CEO of the multinational Interface
Corporation, was asked to speck to his sales force about his companys efforts to protect the
environment because some of Interfaces customers had been asking their sales people about
this issue. When he investigated he discovered that his company, which had a 34% share of
the global market for carpet tiles, was a very large polluter even though it was in full
compliance with all environmental rules and regulations. Mr. Anderson realized that
continuing to use natural resources without also adequately protecting them was also a recipe
for disaster at some point in the future. So he challenged his managers to reduce the
14

companys adverse impact on the environment by setting a deadline of 2020 for Interface to
become a restorative enterprise; a sustainable operation that takes nothing out of the earth
that cannot be recycled or quickly regenerated, and that does no harm to the biosphere.
22

Given the myriad of challenges that are involved in protecting and sustaining the
environment including things like CO
2
emissions, depleted aquifers, and millions of tonnes of
industrial waste, Mr. Anderson was convinced that the only institutions that were big enough
and pervasive enough to address these types of problems were multinational companies such
as Interface. So his companys manufacturing and operations personnel started to develop
new manufacturing methods as well as ways to recycle that would start reducing the
companys carbon footprint. Among other things, his engineers designed and fabricated a
customized multi-million dollar machine to recycle all of their carpet scraps. They also
developed and implemented a plan to adapt their boilers to run on methane gas from the local
landfill and to recycle worn carpet tiles and use them to make the backing for new ones.
Thanks to his companys energy and conservation methods, Interface has reduced its
use of fossil fuel consumption by 50% (over 60% by weight) and is half way to its target of a
zero carbon footprint. It should also be noted that this was accomplished without any push
from government or new environmental regulations. So today, based on his companys own
experience, Mr. Anderson says the environmental protection and sustainability doesnt cost,
it pays in customer loyalty, employee spirit and hard cash. He says Interface sustainability
efforts have saved the company more than $336 million since 1995. In fact, sustainability has
been such a successful strategy that Interface established a consulting arm last year, to market

22
Cornelia Dean. Executive on a Mission: Saving the Planet New York Times (22 May, 2007)
15

its methods to other companies.
23
Mr. Andersons mantra to other business executives is to
protect the environment because doing so positively impacts their companies bottom line.
So as the Interface example demonstrates, there is another way to get MNCs on board
with respect for human rights and the environment as well as their obligations for corporate
social responsibility. But it will require a reduction or elimination of inflammatory rhetoric by
activists within the NGO community. It will require cooperation and a pooling of NGOs
resources. It will require time to investigate and understand the organizational structures of
specific multinational corporations. Are they centralized with most decisions coming from a
headquarters location or are they decentralized with individual divisions or subsidiaries
operating as separate profit centers? Which MNCs should you target within different
industries, the market leader, the number two competitor or maybe the new guy on the block?
(If you can get the right target on board, the competitors will generally be forced to follow
suit.) Who is the "fox" in the corporation, that person two or three management layers
removed from the CEO, who wields the most influence on the primary decision maker(s)?
What are the personal interests or hobbies of the key executive decision makers and other
members of their Board of Directors? These are strategies a salesperson uses when preparing
to approach a potential customer or business partner.
Over the course of my career dealing with a variety of corporate executives, it has
been my experience that most executives make decisions about who they are going to buy
from or partner with based on trust, rather than price, performance, and or features. Are the
human rights NGOs willing to invest the time that it takes to develop trust relationships with
key players within the MNCs? Are they willing to change their attitudes and mindsets from

23
Cornelia Dean Executive on a Mission

16

regarding the MNC as the "enemy" to looking at it as a potential "partner"? If they just want
to stand on the moral high-ground and be "righteous", then they will miss out on opportunities
to at least make some progress on behalf of those whom they say they want to help. If
environmental, human and labor rights NGO's become more willing to compromise and focus
on accomplishing as much as they can with the help of the multinational corporation, then
they will open up new opportunities to serve the interests of those who truly need their
assistance. I believe we are now seeing some hopeful signs that we are finally moving in a
more pragmatic manner. That we are trying to see what we can realistically achieve (with
respect to environmental, human and labor rights) as opposed to what we wish we could
accomplish. Multinational corporations are also beginning to find it progressively more
difficult to hide abuses and or avoid damaging publicity. Only continued progress over time
will tell if this is an accurate assessment.
Bibliography
Bansal, P. and Roth, K. Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness
Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 43 No. 4 (2000) 717-36
Black, Leeora D., Hartel, Charmine E. J. The five capabilities of socially responsible
Companies. Journal of Public Affairs (May 2004):125-144
Damages for a Deadly Cloud. Time, (February 27, 1989): 53
Dean, Cornelia. Executive on a Mission: Saving the Planet New York Times (22 May, 2007)
Donaldson, Thomas. The Ethics of International Business Oxford University Press, 1989.
Henderson, Conway W. Multinational Corporations and Human Rights in Developing
States. World Affairs (Summer 1979):17-31
Interview with Herb Kelleher (6 May,1999)
17

Jones, Kent. Who's Afraid of the WTO? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Kurlantzick, Joshua. Taking Multinationals to Court: How the Alien Tort Act Promotes

Human Rights. World Policy Journal, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Spring 2004):60-67

Litvin, Daniel.Memo to the President Foreign Policy, No.139 (Nov. /Dec. 2003):68- 72
Manasian, David. The power of publicity: publicity about human rights has put pressure on
governments and multinationals. Economist, Vol. 349, No. 8097 (Dec. 5 1998):13-15
Meyer, William H. Human rights and MNCs: theory versus quantitative analysis. Human
Rights Quarterly.Vol. 18 (May 1996):368-397
Sethi, S. Prakesh. Setting global standards: guidelines for creating codes of conduct in

multinational corporations. Hoboken N. J.: J. Willey, 2003.

Williams, Oliver F. Global codes of conduct; an idea whose time has come University of
Notre Dame Press, 2000.
Winston, Morton. NGO Strategies for Promoting Corporate Social Responsibility. Ethics
and International Affairs Vol. 16 (2002):71-88