Cooperate Social Responsibility - National Environmental Policy Act - Essay Example

? Company laws Insert Insert Grade Insert Company laws Companies and other trading cooperate organizations are formed and guided by legal frameworks that are instituted to regulate their conduct and ways of operations. Therefore, the general running of companies is pre-stipulated by the governing provisions in the commercial law provisions and other related regulations. Company management, directors and other decision makers are thus bound to work within these stipulations though at times they are strenuous and unfavorable. Legal consequences are suffered in the event of disregard of these legal guidelines in the operations of companies. Many of the analysts of the modern corporate governance argue that today’s environmental regulations are gradually getting integrated in company decisions (Ong, 2001, 1-14).They argue that decision-making process in companies is becoming complex with the growing regulations from legal regimes that are taking shape always. Cooperate social responsibility from the companies is another aspect of importance that decision makers in companies andcorporate must take into consideration. The legal frameworks within which these trading organizations work are also governed by social responsibilities. Guiding laws on the expectations to the societal values, environmental conservation and human rights form the building block on the interactions of these institutions. The GlaxoSmithKline is a world-basedcompany, which in her business activities must comply with the various legal regimes that apply in the countries of her operations. It also works under guidance and ensures compliance to regulations, applicable laws and company policies (GlaxoSmithKline, 2012, 3). This paper therefore intends to present a critical analysis of the current legal framework under which the decision makers and the directors of companies work. It is also intended to show with examples how these laws and regulations constrain decisions that are made as regards to the day to day running of the companies and the effects of their operations to the communities living around them, environment and the governing human rights. Numerous International Agreements and Declarations contain sundry distinguished legal proclamations; for instance, Principle 1 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development  argues that human  are at the center stage of  viable improvement, and are therefore entitled to a vigorous and fruitful existence in synchronization with nature” (Vanclay, 2003, 6). Moreover, “Principle 17”requires that an impact evaluation be done. States or trading blocks are legislated by these regulations. Most of the trading partners and affiliates within economic blocks are governed by common trade laws. From the state level, these laws are passed down to the companies that are in operations within these countries that are member companies that are operating from outside. For instance, the countries affiliated to European Union are corporately governed by the principles of respect of human rights and environmental conservation. These principles are instituted by adherence of the trade laws that restrict and control imports or exports of harmful goods to environment and human rights. Moreover, there are the commonly assented to regulations within “the free trade preferential operation countries” and therefore the companies are as bound by the law from other countries as they are while within their mother countries. Such regulations that govern company operations with European countries are“EU’s Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) and GSP+ systems, its Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade scheme (FLEGT), and its ‘human rights clauses’ in free trade agreements, in particular the EU?Cariforum and the EU?Korea agreements”. Moreover, the European Union has reaffirmed her commitment as regards to protecting human rights and specifically children rights through enacting regulatory measure within the investment and trade area (Augenstaein, nd, 7-12). This therefore dictates that the operations of companies as regards decision-makingprocess within European Union must be in accordance to these guidelines by the EU member countries. In a case analysis, many early European home and privacy cases evolved aroundnoise pollution. In a case involving Arrondelle and the United Kingdom, case number 48, for instance, this complainant filed a case in dissatisfaction caused by aircrafts’ noise from a nearby GatwickAirport and vehicle noises from an adjacent motorway.It was admitted and comprehensively settled. However, from the courts ruling, other issues were not comprehensively attended to which necessitated reevaluation by “the Court inPowell & Raynor v. United Kingdom.”It was a unanimous opinion by the bench that the aircrafts’ noise violated article 8 though 8(2) actually assent to it. The court thus affirmed that it was necessary for the society’s economic performance. In another case, in “Hatton and Others, the United Kingdom, judgment of 2ndOctober 2001, the Chamber of the European Court found that the noise from increasedflights at Heathrow airport between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m. violated the rights of the applicants to respect for their home and family life, in large part because the sleep deprivation this caused raised heath concerns”. In a defensive mechanism, the court argued that it would be improper for the country to refer economic performance of an entire country to that sensitive area of protecting the environment.However, the country would reduce the interference through finding alternative ways to solve this and considering the lowest burden that could be borne by the people.It also admitted a bleach of article 13 and awarded compensation to the applicants. In his opinion, Judge Costa spoke directly of “the right to a healthy environment, noting that since the beginning of the 1970s, the world had becomeincreasingly aware of the importance of environmental issues and of their influence on people’s lives.” Ina different but related provision, “Article 1 of Protocol 1,” ensured that, all people, natural and legal persons were entitled to enjoyable and peaceable lives(Shelton, 2002, 19-20). NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) is an environmental law body in the United States that is tasked with designing and implementing policies that regards to environmental conservation through agencies and companies. The body was formed when it became apparent clear that the activities of human beings and the corporate bodies had adverse effects towards the environment hence the need to control them. Normally, individual persons or companies get involved with NEPA whenever they require permits only found from the federal agency. For instance, whenever permits applying to federal land or well enough waters within the US, the issuing agency must evaluate and subject the proposal to the NEPA regulations.Therefore, before an individual or company ascertains any decision that is environmental related, NEPA approval is required. It is thus a requirement that any decision-making organ in a company understand the environmental implications of their decisions and that they are to be responsible for any eventuality (NEPA, 2007, 2-5). Razzaque analyses the constitutional provisions by countries in South East Asia and some African countries. One of the commonality of these countries is the well-crafted national constitutions that give supremacy to human life. Legal provisions to the rights of life now through expansion encompass the provision to healthy environment. In India, the interpretation of the right includes saving the environment for future generations. Regulations by the constitution of India stipulates in article 32 that it is only through the law of the country that a person can be denied personal liberty or better still personal life. It was also an interpretation that the provision covers all people to a habitable environment. Article 48A, ascertains the commitment of the government in proper conservation of forest, wildlife and the environment at general. Moreover, “Article 51A (g)”, imposes analike responsibility on all citizens“to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures” (Razzaque, 2002, para 6-13). In Bangladesh, the supreme law is not explicitly and substantively clear on these fundamental rights to clean and habitable environment to human beings. Article 31 however cares for personal property and declares that unless it is refuted by law, every person holds the protection right against destruction of personal reputation and body. Through it also, the citizens of the country are mandated to a fair treat as the law provides.However, whenever the provisions are not consented to, compensation is bound to be. Therefore, the above articles incorporate theimportant provision to life. For illustration, following is a discussion that prompts the right a healthy environment into the right to life: “In 1994, public interest litigation was initiated before the Supreme Court dealing with air and noise pollution. In a similar case procedure, a positive outcome was met when the division of the high court and appellate division ruled out in the Supreme Court. Farooque versus Bangladesh case restated her pledge to the task of “engaging concern for the conservation of environment, irrespective of the locality where it is threatened (Razzaque, 2002, para 13-14). “The Establishment of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) was passed by the Constitutional Court on 4 December 1996, and took effect on 4 February 1997, whereby, section 11” concerns the “right to life” and it is a “non-derogable right.” It also says, through tha government, the environment will be protected against any form of pollution and ensure sustainable development in nation building (Razzaque, 2002, para 58). Thus from the above discussion and analysis, it becomes quite clear that the decisions and the acts by the government in running the airstrip and the road in the vicinity of the residence of people deprived them of their right to life and habitable environment. In this regard, we ascertain that the legal regimes work to a great extent to influence the decisions by corporate. A development and environment declaration principle from Rio conference requires that countries asses all activities within their boundaries in order to control pollution. “Principle (15) of the same declaration and which by large deal with application of the precautionary principle is equally relevant” (Ogola, 2007, 2). The actions ofcompanies are wholesomelyshaped by “corporate and security laws”. However, the implications to individual human rights still are un-understood. These two often stand as distinct policy and legal spheres. Nevertheless, the “CL Project” is a constituent to “the SRSG’s work” to operationalize the“UN Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework for business and human rights.” The project is founded on differentiated but complementary platforms of: “the state duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business, through appropriate policies, regulation, and adjudication”, “the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which inessence means to act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the rights of others”, and “greater access by victims to effective remedy, judicial and non?judicial”. “The CL Project focuses on the role of states regarding corporate and securities law and policy, but it is also relevant to the concerns of the other two pillars”(United Nations, 2010, 1).   In the modern day, it is apparently clear that many legal reforms targeting companies and the corporate business world are in the make. However, not much of a differencein purpose and the working can be noted. The countries continue to design these laws to get full control of the private and corporate sector as regards social responsibility in human rights observations and the governance in environmental conservation. Many of these regulations are denying the corporate governance in public limited companies as well as other forms of trade corporations the supremacy in decision-making processes. Many of the decisions taken in running the institutions must therefore be scrutinized in accordance to the legal frameworks that are designed in these countries (Hoft, 2000, 4). Majority of these legal regimes being crafted are basically regulatory and thus are meant to safeguard the interests of the communities within which companies operate, human rights of all, the employees, and the people around and finally to ensure environmental conservation favor the sake of the current generation and the future generations. In the analysis of the Johannesburg declaration, among the successes that were achieved was the deliberations on “recognition of community and indigenous people’s rights; acknowledging the importance of ethics; and the promotion of greater corporate responsibility and accountability.” However, despite the commendable deliberations on the development agendas targeting corporate spheres, the human rights and the environmental conservation mechanisms, a great failure occurred by the heads of states recommending and adopting the already existing tools of resolving these challenges. Analysis has ever since showed no better performance than was through the Rio 21 legal framework (Vina, Hoff and DeRose, 2003, 2-9). Apart from producing the “Agenda 21” and the “Rio declaration,” the Rio conference has been recorded to have produced great international legal instruments as regarding the forest principles, the convention on biological diversity and the UN framework convention on climate change (Anon, 2012, 5-7). However, critics point out the failure of the Rio Agenda as to the negation of the “integration “and instead advocated for sectorial development. Therefore, in the heart, sustainable development agenda, the Rio agenda introduced divisions by advocating for the sectorial development which analysts question the viability. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anonymous. (2012). Review of implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles.Sustainable Development in the 21st century (SD21).Pp 5-7 Augenstein D. (nd).study of the legal framework on human rights and the environment applicable to European enterprises operating outside the European Union. Pp 7-12 GlaxoSmithKline PLC. (2012). One company, one approach.The GSK Code of Conduct Individual.Responsibility; Collective Purpose. Version 8 (July 2012). Pp 3 Hopt K. J. (2000). ModernCompanyLawProblems: A EuropeanPerspectiveKeynoteSpeech.CompanyLawReforminOECDCountriesAComparativeOutlookofCurrentTrendsStockholm,Sweden 7-8December2000. Pp 4 La Vina A.G.M.,Hoff G, and DeRose A. M. (2003). THE OUTCOMES OF JOHANNESBURG: ASSESSING THE WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.A Journal of International Affairs as a part of their Winter-Spring 2003 Issue. (Volume XXIII, Number 1). Pp 2-9 NEPA.(2007). A Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA Having Your Voice Heard.Council on environmental quality Executive office of the president. December 2007. Pp 2-5 Ogola P. F. A. (2007). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT GENERAL PROCEDURES. Presented at Short Course II on Surface Exploration for Geothermal Resources, organized by UNU-GTP and KenGen, at Lake Naivasha, Kenya, 2-17 November, 2007. Pp 2 Ong D.M. (2001). The Impact of Environmental Law on Corporate Governance: International and Comparative Perspectives.EJIL (2001), Vol. 12 No. 4, 685–726. Pp 1-14. Razzaque J. (2002).Human Rights and the Environment: the national experience in South Asia and Africa.Joint UNEP-OHCHR Expert Seminar on Human Rights and the Environment14-16 January 2002, Geneva: Background Paper No. 4. Para 6-58. [ Accessed on 17/4/2013] Web: Shelton D. (2002).Human Rights, Health & Environmental Protection: Linkages in Law & Practice A Background Paper for the World Health Organization. Health and Human Rights Working Paper Series No 1. 2002. Pp 19-20 United Nations. (2010).OVERARCHING TRENDS AND  OBSERVATIONS.  July 2010 CORPORATE LAW PROJECT.Mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises.Pp 1 Vanclay F. (2003). SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SIA) IS ANALYSING, MONITORING AND MANAGING THE SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF DEVELOPMENT. INTERNATIONAL PRINCIPLES for SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT.International Association for Impact Assessment.Special Publication Series No. 2. May 2003. Pp 6 Read More