Ethics, Social Responsibility, and Accountability in Business - Coursework Example

1. Introduction The concept of ethics, social responsibility and accountability in business is inherently complex and has fuelled polarised debate as to the parameters of its role in practice. Furthermore, this has been compounded by the integration of the globalisation phenomenon into international business; with the increased movement of capital, commodities, cultural imaginations and practices1. A concomitant result of this has been the proliferation of international expansion opportunities for businesses, which has brought the issue of ethics and corporate responsibility to the fore. To this end, some commentators argue that governments should discourage trade with countries having bad human rights records. Indeed, in the British Government body “Headsup” 2008 debate “Human Rights or Poverty? Should the UK only trade, send aid or money to countries with a good human rights record?”2; MP Shahid Malik argued that continued trade and aid to countries with poor human rights records was problematic and that “there is evidence that too much of the wrong sort of aid, going to governments, may actually discourage and paralyse development”3. Moreover, appurtenant to this is the fact that the principle of sustainable economic development and simultaneous integration of environmental concerns in international trade and investment has propagated debate with regard to the trade off between economic benefits vis-à-vis ethical and environmental problems in international trade and global corporate social responsibility. The proliferation of the globalisation phenomenon on international trade has resulted in the growth of transnational corporations and multinational corporations (MNCs) and an early 1990s UNCTAD World Investment Report (2003) entitled “Transnational Corporations and Integrated International Production” highlighted the “ascension of international production over international trade in importance of the world economy”. In turn, the economic opportunities offered by globalisation of trade culminated in a marked shift in host government policies towards foreign direct investment (FDI) which fuelled the growth of TNCs and MNCs4. However, the growth of TNC and MNC activities has fuelled concern as to the concomitant impact of international trade on environmental and ethical issues. For example, the UNCTAD report (1993) suggested that the trends pertaining to growth of international trade and TNC activity “stresses that the trends observed constitute a major shift in international economic relations, encouraging closer regional ties leading to “free production agreements”. However, the increase of international trade has been overwhelmingly based on an economic foundation. Indeed, the UNCTAD report (1993) highlighted that: “the imperatives of such integration reflected the gradual expansion of the markets served and the growth of the “economic community” from families, to tribes, tribal nations, cities, city states, nation states and now regional associations of nations and global agreements”. On the other hand, the 2002 Earth Summit on global environmental protection pressed the need for the increase of international trade to move towards a collaborative movement of investment and environmental issues as opposed to merely focusing on economic benefits in international trade initiatives5. The moves towards incorporating environmental concerns into international trade have created a tension as to the parameters of corporate social responsibility and re-ignited ethical concerns pertaining to increasing corporate control over political affairs in the international framework6. This economic foundation of increased international co-operation has culminated in a novel conflict between corporate power and societal structures. For example, King and McCarthy suggest that the “integration of the world economy has increased the power of global markets vis-à-vis state governments7” and that through this process “transnational corporations (TNCs) appear to have gained enormous power over global affairs” leading to environmental and ethical concerns about corporations “ruling the world8”. This potential for abuse by transnational corporations is compounded by the reality that the importance of international trade and FDI to host governments lends itself to minimum regulation to maintain inward investment, which in turn impacts international adherence to human rights protection9. This argument is further supported by King and McCarthy’s observations that “Nation states… are also increasingly unwilling to impose regulations for the fear of losing investments and tax revenues”10. The focus of this paper is to critically evaluate the extent to which the increasing role of MNCs in international trade presses the need to bolster the international system of human rights to ensure meaningful adherence to corporate social responsibility objectives. It is submitted at the outset that the uneasy relationship between human rights protection and corporate social responsibility begs the question as to whether governments should block trade with countries with poor human rights records. On the one hand, a common method utilised for business expansion internationally is the use of the MNC paradigm and adds support to the suggestion in the above statement that “a strong system of Human Rights obligations and standards for MNCs will be more important than ever before”. Additionally, MNCs have been criticised for often being susceptible to corruption as part of their entry strategy into certain states, which has further pressed support for compliance with the UN Global Compact in imposing corporate social responsibilities on business organisations. However, whilst the UN Global Compact aims to introduce ethics into corporate responsibility, its lack of enforcement at global level has lent further support to the argument that governments should discourage trade with countries with poor human rights records. On the other hand, there are clearly disadvantages of such an approach and Weede refers to the danger of implementing “negative” or “protective human rights11. For example, in certain war torn countries, where human rights have been abused under international law resulting in Western government imposed trade bans, Chinese companies have had no such reservations about entering the same market; which begs the question as to whether trade bans are the correct approach to addressing human rights12. Therefore highlights the need for caution in considering the interrelationship between human rights and corporate social responsibility going forward particularly if we consider the UN Global Compact further. 2. The UN Global Compact and the Corporate Social Responsibility Debate From a human rights perspective, the United Nations (UN) describes the Global Compact as “a strategic policy initiative for businesses that are committed to aligning their operations and strategies with ten universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption”13. The UN Global Compact is voluntary and the underlying objective is stated to be the introduction of social responsibility into international business and the code embodies ten core principles14. In essence, the UN Global Compact is a voluntary corporate citizenship network geared towards the mainstreaming business activity ethics worldwide and fuelling the preservation of UN human rights’ objectives within the international business framework15. Slaughter further observes the UN objectives in the Global Compact in attempting to harmonise consistency in corporate social responsibility measures among UN organisations, international labour organisations and NGOS to assist the creation of a “more inclusive and equitable marketplace”16. However, the Global Compact does not impose sanctions or implement an enforcement framework and prima facie provides a system for facilitation and is not a regulatory instrument. Indeed, Macintosh et al highlight the fact that “the Global Compact relies on public accountability, transparency and the enlightened self interest of companies, labour and civil society to initiate and share substantive action in pursuing the principles upon which the Global Compact is based”17. In the absence of any regulatory code, Slaughter further refers to the UN’s assertion of information sharing requirements and the chief architect of the Global Compact’s declaration that “the core of its change model is a learning forum. Companies submit case studies of what they have done to translate their commitment to the GC principles into concrete corporate practices”18. As such, there is an assumption that information sharing and self regulation will fuel a dynamic process towards human rights compliance. Indeed, Slaughter extrapolates that the rationale behind this assumption is that “multiple minds are better than one and that experience is the best teacher”19. However there is a distinct lack of government authority for enforcement of the network and the efficacy of the UN Global Compact is inherently reliant on voluntary participation and compliance by non-state corporate entities in UN member states, which has fuelled debate as to its efficacy and purpose in practice. On the one hand, there is the official UN argument that the Global Compact facilitates mutual cooperation in the preservation of fundamental rights and prevention of corruption at corporate level. To this end, it moves towards a creation of social responsibility within the corporate cultural mindset. On the other hand, it has been posited that the Global Compact in reality amounts to no more than “a grandiose opportunity for corporations to polish their damaged image”. This in turn suggests that whilst the relationship between corporate social responsibility and human rights remains important, future consideration clearly needs to review how far it is feasible to implement meaningful measures which effectively regulate corporate conduct particularly in relation to MNCs and TNCs. This is further highlighted if we consider the motivations behind the UN Global Impact. In Macintosh et al’s “Learning to talk: Corporate citizenship and the development of the UN Global compact”20, the foreword by Kofi Annan asserts that “when I first introduced the Global Compact at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 1999, I warned that unless more serious consideration were given to social and environmental issues, the global economy would grow ever more fragile. I called on business leaders to join a Global Compact as a vehicle for exercising enlightened self-interest: to embrace universal principles in the area of human rights, labour and the environment and to support United Nations goals and to contribute to more stable but inclusive markets”21. Therefore the underlying basis of the UN Global Compact is rooted in the principles that human rights issues are intertwined with corporate issues and therefore corporate organisations have a duty to ensure that human rights objectives are not impeded by corporate objectives. To this end, principle 1 of the UN Global Compact provides that “businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights within their sphere of influence”22. The overriding objective of asserting the primacy of human rights in business is undoubtedly a positive factor in acknowledging the various stakeholder interests affected by the institutional framework within which corporations operate. However, it is evident that the inherent flaw of the Global Compact is the naïve assumption of corporation compliance. Indeed, Fellner highlights the inherent corporate resistance to the Global Compact by highlighting the controversy created by the original UN proposals in the UN’s Center on Transnational Corporations (Fellner, 2008 p.223). Fellner highlights the point that significant opposition from powerful member states to the Center’s proposals led to its dissolution and therefore the subsequent Global Compact effectively acts as a compromise by implementing a self regulatory guidance framework “with no outside verification or oversight” (Fellner, 2008: p.223). This therefore creates the result of potentially limited practical efficacy whilst bolstering the appearance of commitment to corporate social responsibility by Global Compact participating companies. Moreover, the human rights principles asserted in Principle 1 of the Global Compact clearly mirror the human rights provisions in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948 (available at www.un.org/en/documents/udhr ). The Universal Declaration defined itself as “a common standard for achievement for all peoples and all nations”. However, whilst theoretically these human rights apply to private corporations, it is submitted that the inherent weakness in the UN Global Compact is that furtherance of the objectives extrapolated in the Principles are inherently dependent on voluntary compliance. Additionally, the Global Compact principles are drafted in wide terms and the exact nature of the correlation between businesses and human rights remains unclear and has provided a source of contention as to the extent to which businesses can apply human rights principles in practice23. For example, Fellner observes that a common problem with corporate social responsibility in practice is that “corporations could sign on to the mildly noble principles and then go about their business. And a number of the signatories, according to the participating NGOs, had done just that: they’d joined but then continued to violate basic human rights provisions”24. Fellner further refers to the comments of Kathryn Mulvey, who is the director of Corporate Accountability International (CAI) who perceives the Global Compact as perpetuating the problem of meaningful corporate social responsibility25. Moreover, this is further compounded by the fact that corporate cultural norms are invariably disparate from state to state of the participating companies, which will further widen the scope for disparity in how national institutions apply the principles of the UN Global Compact in the absence of consistent enforcement mechanisms. As such, this intrinsic flaw of the Global Compact assumption of voluntary compliance appears to support the statement that the Global Compact effectively provides a veil of legitimacy to the tarnished reputations of corporations. This is particularly evident if we consider the Global Compact principle geared towards combating corruption in the Tenth Principle. Whilst the Global Compact’s Tenth Principle provides that businesses should work towards combating corruption, this arguably ignores the complex relationship between government level corruption and corporate strategy of non state sectors both at operational and market entry level. Indeed, Beneria and Bisnath highlight that “there is nothing explicit in the principles to draw attention to one of the most important aspects of corporate power: the way in which it is so often wielded so as to undermine democratic governance. Research has charted the ways in which powerful companies operated behind the scenes to shape, in their own interest, the operation of domestic and international laws”26. For example, if we contextually consider corporate strategy entry modes for MNCs in the international marketplace, Rodriguez et al’s arguments centre on state corruption as the central point in impacting entry stage whereas the issues regarding the effective lack of governance of MNCs under the law clearly raises the controversial issues regarding MNC corruption as part of its entry level strategy through exploitation of the lack of effective governance measures27. Furthermore, the creation of an MNC corporate structure is often motivated by tax reasons or compliance with local requirements in order to enter the relevant market28. Accordingly, it is submitted that the lack of effective governance through the legal framework clearly impacts business strategy to a degree that is ignored in the corruption debate as evidenced by Rodriguez et al’s arguments. Moreover, Rodriguez et al’s arguments further highlight the flaws of the Global Compact principles in failing to provide incentives to corporations to apply its objectives in practice and highlight the problems of implementing a corporate social responsibility mentality into commercial organisations. The central argument propounded by Rodriguez et al is the need to implement a comprehensive framework to consider the relationship between corruption and MNC entry mode strategy from a management level for future application in business strategy operations29. It is submitted that in context of the UN Global Compact debate, Rodriguez et al’s contextual report on MNCs is important in highlighting the complex external actors influencing corporation strategy objectives in the institutional framework within which they operate. This in turn will ultimately have a significant effect on the degree of voluntary compliance by participating companies with the Global Compact. Moreover, in introducing the issue of corruption, Rodriguez et al argue that government infrastructure and the relevant arms of state will inherently be influenced by the government in power, which can lend itself to corruption30. To this end, they argue that it is necessary to consider how the interrelationship between these factors impact MNC entry strategy and business operations in general. However, it is important to note that the notion of corruption is inherently complex and Rodriguez et al highlight the importance of appreciating this and refer to a leading study of Shleifer & Vishny (1993) which highlighted that “the experience of operating in a corrupt environment is substantially characterised not only by the amount of corruption but also by the uncertainty associated with corrupt transactions”31. To this end, the assumption of compliance of the Global Compact clearly appears to be somewhat naïve. This is further evidenced by the Rodriguez et al’s reference to the polarised debate regarding the nature of corruption. On the one hand they refer to the line of argument that corruption can expand the public interest and to this end fail to consider the actual impact of corruption on MNCs. On the other side of the argument, is the proposition that corruption is actually an opportunity for political behaviour by MNCs, which in turn is exploited by their lack of regulation under law32. Moreover, Rodriguez et al hypothesise that the correlation between the corruption and political behaviour in terms of causative effect is vital to management strategy when considering entry level against a corrupt framework33. As such, Rodriguez et al highlight that government corruption can have a concomitant effect on the organisational legitimacy of the MNC which in turn can impact the “entry mode decisions of multinationals”34. Accordingly as highlighted above the central deficiency of the UN Global Compact is the failure to address enforcement and compliance along with the broadly drafted principles, which arguably lack complete appreciation of the nature of corruption and the influence of government level corruption on national corporate structures. This creates an inherent paradox with the Tenth Principle of the Global Compact and further enables corporations to utilise the Compact to provide a veil of legitimacy in its business operations. Indeed, Beneria and Bisnath comment that the method of implementing corporate social responsibility ultimately “depends on how they are interpreted”35. In order to address these issues, the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human rights adopted a document including a proposed set of norms, aiming to clarify the scope of rights applicable to companies36. The Norms on the Responsibility of Trans-national Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights include the following: 1) The right to equal opportunity and non discriminatory treatment; 2) The right to security of persons; 3) The rights of workers; and 4) Economic, social and cultural rights37. There are clearly overlaps with the rights enshrined under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, from a UK perspective the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 applies to public bodies as opposed to corporations. As such, the UN Global Compact arguably goes further in addressing corporate social responsibility. Nevertheless, in addition to the wide terms of the Global Compact, this is compounded by the fact that the position remains uncertain as to the extent corporations should be responsible for the preservation of human rights. For example, Macintosh et al comment that “much of the global debate about business and human rights has focused on preventing violations attributed to companies. Considerably less attention has been given to the opportunities companies have to contribute to the positive enjoyment of human rights”38. However, on the one hand, corporations clearly adhere to the objectives of the Global Compact by complying with national laws regarding discrimination, work safety and employment dismissal rights therefore perhaps it is too dogmatic to assert that the Compact is merely a grandiose gesture and purely serves to address the poor reputation of companies. Nevertheless, such compliance is bred out of compliance measures and enforcement penalties and instead, the Global Compact operates on an assumption of mutual compliance. Moreover, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights described the role of corporations as “organs of society” and that a central objective should be adherence to the rule of law and democracy in the countries in which they operate39. However, this will inherently depend on the sphere of influence and the Global Compact asserts that “companies should assess their spheres of influence and design their rights and responsibilities accordingly”40. It is submitted that this will clearly be shaped by the interrelationship of various factors from the external and internal stakeholders, the nation state and the government as opposed to any overwhelming desire to comply with mutual cooperation under the Global Compact in a move towards corporate social responsibility. This naïve assumption of the Global Compact is further evidenced by the statements of Annan on his third visit to the World Economic Forum, where he commented that “our challenge today is to devise a similar compact on the global scale, to underpin the new global economy. If we succeed in that, we would lay the foundation for an age of global prosperity, comparable to that enjoyed by the industrialised countries in the decades after the Second World War”41. As such, Kell and Levin posit that the UN Global Compact is effectively a measure to address the deficiencies of capitalism and born out of the initial objectives at inception of the UN in the aftermath of the Second World War. On this basis, Kell and Levin extrapolate that “the Global Compact is a global amalgamation of strategic and wide public policy learning networks that cultivates integrative learning and action42. However, it is difficult to see how the UN Global Compact actually operates with the business world. Kent refers to reports undertaken by Claude Fussler and the World Business Council for Sustainable business in relation to the link between signatories to the United Nations Global Compact and profitability in 2004, which conclude “As a group, the Global Compact signatories created more value, the goals of sustainability, the challenges of social responsibility and leadership’s inspiration by principles higher than the sole profit motivation – they all foster business excellence”43. Nevertheless, whilst not undermining the results of such research, Kent highlights that this increase in profitability appears to be dependent on the characteristics of the particular business that are proactive on corporate social responsibility. Often such companies are in sectors targeted by socially conscious activists and therefore the corporate social responsibility is borne out of the need to alleviate bad publicity. To this end, Kent observes that “they engage in sophisticated and well financed stakeholder management….. by establishing methodologies for listening and responding to a wide range of stakeholder concerns”44. As a result these very companies have engaged in the Global Compact debate. However, the previous attempts of the United Nations to implement a code of practice for “trans-national corporations” in 1977 failed because western governments opposed it and “in the vacuum left by the inability of institutions of global governance to act, a plethora of international and national organisations have attempted to develop codes of conduct regarding MNCs”45. However, this in turn begs the question as to what is different now under the voluntary Global Compact. Van der Lugt argues that through the Global Compact, the UN may have established a co-regulatory approach. And Macintosh et al post that the “shift to active engagement between the UN and business poses the most enormous of challenges to the United Nations, split as it is into a family of organisations with diverse histories, governance procedures and organisational behaviours46. Conversely, Macintosh et al comment that the UN is using the Global Compact to find about businesses and learn how to manage social partnerships among corporations, states and civil society organisations. Indeed, Kell comments that the outcome of the venture remains ambiguous as question marks remain as to which UN member states will grant the UN an important role in the economic sphere of activity47. Moreover, Macintosh et al assert that nevertheless as “Kell confirms, such criticism of the Global Compact has been instrumental in provoking an ongoing search of the right incentives and the methodologies to bring about desired changes while maintaining the integrity of the institution48. Therefore to this end the Global Compact remains arguably an experiment and therefore there polarised debate remains about the Global Compact’s ability to enforce significant inroads into the concept of corporate social responsibility. Therefore, on the one hand the Global Compact could be viewed as an experiment and on the other hand “its success will only be accepted by some external critics if it can be shown to have clearly achieved improvements against the Millennium Development Council or diminish what many perceive to be the problems of globalisation”49. Whilst Fussler’s report clearly demonstrates a link between profitability and corporate social responsibility, ultimately the interrelationship of various external factors will inform a corporation’s approach to human rights. Indeed, Kell and Levin argue alternatively that the UN Global Compact could facilitate UN objectives whilst moving away from the UN co-regulatory intentions in direct participation, thereby minimising any role of the UN in the Global Compact. To this end, Kell and Levin posit that “the importance of the evolution of these local networks cannot be overstated. It represents a shift towards the decentralisation of the network and the distribution of ownership, both critical to the longevity of the initiative. Besides devolving responsibility to local networks, the Global Compact office has increasingly empowered “enablers” such as the World Business Council for Sustainable development and Business for Social responsibility to expand the network and manage issues related individual companies. Such decentralisation will enhance the potential of the Global Compact to embed markets around the world”50. However, the UN assumption that non-state actors such as multinational businesses, trade unions and civil society organisations are willing to impose the Global Compact is flawed. To this end, it is reiterated that the institutional framework is vital in determining the likelihood of corporate social responsible measures being implemented by an organisation. For example, Macintosh et al comments that “as a UN initiative, the Global Compact thrives on the convening power and moral authority of the organisation as well as the universal legitimacy of its principles. However, these strengths come with the liabilities of bureaucracy and cumbersome intergovernmental protocols that stifle innovation”51. Nevertheless, it is submitted that the Global Compact is important as an experimental measure in testing the boundaries of corporate initiative in self regulatory moves towards corporate social responsibility. If anything, the inherent weakness is the assumption regarding the concept of “partnership” between the UN and corporate organisations. Indeed, Wilkinson and Hughes observed that the “The Global Compact took forward Annan’s previous calls at earlier WEF meetings for the UN to form a “creative partnership” with the private sector, on the basis that the two share mutually supportive goals, and because without such action the course of globalisation will be challenged”52. Conversely, the ICFTU argues that “global and binding rules are necessary to protect people”53. Therefore there remains a distinct chasm between Global Compact policy and practice. To this end, it is submitted that the objectives of the Global Compact are not without merit and from the UN perspective in advocating human rights it is arguably too dogmatic to brandish the Compact is a merely grandiose gesture. 3. Conclusion The central problem is the compromise pertaining to self regulation and the broadly defined principles of the Compact. These facilitate disparity in corporate strategy due to the inherent variables in state institutional framework. This lack of consistency further perpetuates ad hoc measures with little incentive for compliance. As such, it is the lack of regulatory measures at UN level in practice has effectively undermined the objective of corporate social responsibility and highlights the point that protest trade embargoes ignore the wider issue of the need to implement a cohesive international legal framework to enforce meaningful sanctions for human rights violations. Indeed, Myers & Kent comment that the power of the new world order is exemplified by a contemporary evaluation of the concept of the nation state. They argue that the nation state concept has been “leaking power and legitimacy upwards towards international if not global institutions such as the United Nations, mega-corporations and global communications… The nation state is no longer sovereign and independent54”. To this end, the above analysis highlights that the crux of the conflict between economic benefits and environmental and ethical objectives in international trade is the increasing power of TNCs in global economic integration. Moreover, the financial benefit derived to host governments from TNC investment operates as a disincentive to national states in enforcing environmental and ethically conscious regulation. Whilst there is an increased movement and consciousness towards co-operation in implementing corporate social responsibility with initiatives such as the UN Global Compact; such measures are at present self regulatory and therefore rely on voluntary compliance. For example, as highlighted above, Macintosh, et al comment that “the Global Compact relies on public accountability, transparency and the enlightened self interest of companies, labour and civil society to initiate and share substantive action in pursuing the principles upon which the Global Compact is based”. However there is a distinct lack of government authority for enforcement of the network and the efficacy of the UN Global Compact is inherently reliant on voluntary participation and compliance by non-state corporate entities in UN member states, which has fuelled debate as to its efficacy and purpose in practice particularly with the rising power of TNCs and MNCs in international trade. Therefore it is submitted that the trade off between economic benefits and environmental and ethical issues in international trade is inherently complex and will ultimately depend on the corporate objectives and power of the relevant MNC. Nevertheless, the above analysis highlights that in general the globalisation of trade and role played by MNCs in global economic integration has resulted in economic benefits generally taking precedence over environmental and ethical objectives, which will impact the potential benefits of any measures geared towards harmonising human rights protection and corporate social responsibility going forward. Bibliography Beneria, L. & S. Bisnath (2004). Global tensions: challenges and opportunities in the world economy. Routledge Brah, Hickman & Mac Ghaill (1999). Whither The Global in Global Futures – Migration, Environment and Globalisation. London: Macmillan Press. Charles, W. L. (2005) International Business. McGraw Hill Fellner, K. (2008) Wrestling with Starbucks: Conscience, Capital Cappuccino. Rutgers University Press. Haney, P. H. & Walt Vanderbush. (2005) The Cuban Embargo: The Domestic politics of an American foreign policy. University of Pittsburgh Press. Jaffe, S. (2009). Is there a conflict between environmental protection and economic growth? www.lawandenvironment.com accessed January 2010 S. Kauffman Purcell, D. J. Rothkopf (2000) Cuba: the Contours of Change. Lynne Rienner Publishers Kent, S., G. Cheney & J. Roper (2007). The debate over corporate social responsibility. Oxford University Press. King, L., & McCarthy, D. (2005). Environmental Sociology: From Analysis to Action. Luo, Yadong. How to Enter China: Choices and Lessons. (2000) University of Michigan Press. 2000 OECD. Foreign Direct Investment in China. Prospects and Policy Challenges. Available at www.oecd.org/dataoecd 2002 Macintosh, M, Sandra Waddock & G. Kell (2004). Learning to talk: Corporate citizenship and the development of the UN Global Compact. Greenleaf Publishing Peter T Muchlinski., (2007). Multinational Enterprises and the Law. 2nd Edition Oxford University Press. Myers, N., & Kent, J. (2005). The New Atlas of Planet Management. University of California Press. Pei, Minxin. (2008) China’s Trapped Transition: The Limits of Developmental Autocracy. Harvard University Press Perez, Louis Cuba: Between Reform and Revolution (1998) New York Oxford University Press, Perez, L.A. (2003) Cuba and the United States: Ties of singular intimacy. The University of Georgia Press Ranney, D. (2003). Global Decisions, local collisions: urban life in the new world order. Temple University Press. Rodriguez, P., Uhlenbruck, K., & Eden, L. (2005). Government Corruption and the Entry Strategies of Multinationals. Volume 30 No. 2 383-396. Alan Rugman & Richard Hodgetts (2003) International Business. Prentice Hall 3rd Edition Schwab, P. (2000) Cuba: Confronting the US Embargo. Palgrave Macmillan Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1993). Corruption. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108: 599-617. Slaughter, A. (2004). A New World Order. Princeton University Press. C. Staten. (2003) The History of Cuba. Greenwood Publishing Group The UN Global Compact and Ten Principles www.unglobalcompact.org accessed January 2010 Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalisation and Culture. Cambridge: polity Press. Weede, E. (2006). Human Rights, Limited Government and Capitalism. Cato Journal. Volume 28, No.1 Wei, L., & Bangu A. (2004). The Social Economic and Environmental Aspects of Trade Liberalisation. www.china-review.org/news/manage/image accessed January 2010. Wilkinson, R. & S. Hughes (2002). Global Governance: Critical Perspectives. Routledge The Norms on the Responsibility of Trans-national Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2 The UN Global Compact and Ten Principles available at www.unglobalcompact.org accessed January 2010 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948 (available at www.un.org/en/documents/udhr Websites and Sources www.UNHCR.org/HighCommissioner Read More