Accountability and Transparency in Relation To Human Rights - A Critical Perspective Reflecting Upon Accounting, Corporate Responsibility and Ways Forward in The Context of Globalisation

Critical Perspectives on Accounting 22 (2011) 765780
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Critical Perspectives on Accounting
j our nal home page: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ cpa
Accountability and transparency in relation to human rights: A critical
perspective reecting upon accounting, corporate responsibility and
ways forward in the context of globalisation
Sonja Gallhofer
a
, Jim Haslam
b,
, Sibylle van der Walt
c
a
School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London, London, England E1 4NS, UK
b
DurhamBusiness School, DurhamUniversity, Durham, England DH1 3LB, UK
c
AdamSmith Research Foundation, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 1 September 2009
Received in revised form1 July 2010
Accepted 1 February 2011
a b s t r a c t
In this paper we critically theorise accountability and transparency, and accounting, in
relation to human rights. Consistent with our perspective, we articulate human rights as
a complex and very important construct. We link human rights to notions of accountabil-
ity and transparency (and hence to accounting) and elaborate how theoretical debates and
developments in the humanities andsocial sciences rene but do not displace the argument
that governance for human rights is a meaningful pursuit and policy. Indeed, they in some
ways promote the mobilisation of accounting in the context. We go on to elaborate further
howaccounting (we especially focus upon corporate accounting and reporting) may come
to the service of human rights. Developing our critical perspective more concretely and
positively, we reect, giving consideration to real world happenings and relevant illustra-
tions, upon the interface of accounting, various actors (especially corporations) and human
rights in the context of globalisation. And we reect upon ways forward.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A ray of courage to the oppressed and poor;
A spark, though gleaming on the hovels hearth;
Which through the tyrants gilded domes shall roar;
A beacon in the darkness of the Earth;
A sun which, oer the renovated scene,
Shall dart like Truth where Falsehood yet has been
FromShelley, 1812, To A Balloon Laden with Knowledge, a sonnet included in Shelley, 1988, p. 877, quoted in Gallhofer
and Haslam, 2003, p. 1.
1. Introduction
We theorise accountability and transparency, and accounting, vis--vis human rights, from a critical perspective.
1
We
articulate some key and difcult issues concerning human rights. We link rights to accountability and transparency (and
hence to accounting) and reect how developments in theorising rene but do not displace the argument that human
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jim.haslam@durham.ac.uk (J. Haslam).
1
Human rights have served as a model for general concerns. When corporate social responsibility is addressed at the international level it intersects
with human rights concerns (Ruggie, 2008). Some would suggest a concern to explicitly reect upon accounting and human rights is thus long overdue.
1045-2354/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2011.07.002
766 S. Gallhofer et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 22 (2011) 765780
rights governance is a meaningful pursuit. Indeed, they actually in some ways promote the further and to some extent
transformed mobilisation of accounting in this context. We then elaborate accountings potential (focusing especially upon
corporate accounting) vis--vis humanrights. Developing our argument more concretely andpositively, we thenreect, with
consideration to real world happenings and relevant illustration, upon the interface of accounting, various actors (State and
non-State, especially corporations) and human rights in the context of globalisation. And we reect upon ways forward. The
structure of our paper is thus as follows: (i) a theoretical position on human rights vis--vis accountability, transparency and
accounting; (ii) a further delineation of howaccountings may better serve human rights; (iii) reections, with consideration
to real world happenings, on the interface of accounting, actors and rights in the context of globalisation; (iv) ways forward;
(v) concluding comments.
2. A theoretical position on human rights in relation to accountability, transparency and accounting
In developing a position, we seek to understand context, to question and to better things. Questioning implies openness
and reexivity (and sensitivity to change) across all dimensions of theorising as praxis. It extends: to appreciation of context,
including that of the theorist; to the questioning (here openness is willingness to re-interpret old questions and add new);
and, to envisioning better worlds and strategies (Held, 1980; Held and McGrew, 2000; Gallhofer and Haslam, 2003).
Todays human rights emerged out of the humanitarian catastrophes of World War II. In 1945, protecting individuals,
minorities or the marginalized against the power of majorities, where that encroached on the existential human condition,
was deemed crucial for future States (Glendon, 2002; Van der Walt, forthcoming). The UNs Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, enforced in 1948 with the consent of 48 and abstention of 8 countries, was the rst international agreement to
promote a construct of international human rights. What were the agreements crucial elements? Firstly, the construct is
based on subjective rights (droits subjectifs) of individuals entitling them to certain fundamental life conditions under no
circumstances to be taken away. Secondly, these rights are claimable against a ruling majoritys decision-making if needed.
Thirdly, they are taken to apply universally and as moral claims in countries whose laws do not embrace positive human
rights norms. Dworkin famously evoked an image frombridge to explain post-war understanding of human rights: it is as
if the individual is given a trump card to invalidate results of the normal social decision-making process if threatening his
protected sphere (Taylor, 1986; Dworkin, 1990).
2
This reasoning (rights creation protects the vulnerable where they live if State-protection fails) explains why rights were
rediscovered as a promising tool to regulate globalisations unbound forces. For John Ruggie,
3
the human rights agenda tries
to compensate for State failure vis--vis globalisation, the governance gaps:
The root cause of the business and human rights predicament today lies in the governance gaps created by global-
ization between the scope and impact of economic forces and actors, and the capacity of societies to manage their
adverse consequences. These governance gaps provide the permissive environment for wrongful acts by companies
of all kinds without adequate sanctioning or reparation. Howto narrowand ultimately bridge the gaps in relation to
human rights is our fundamental challenge. (Ruggie, 2008, p. 3).
4
The ambitious and far reaching attempt to universally guarantee human rights to individuals has, however, been ques-
tioned. A number of objections still challenge human rights discourses (see Kennedy, 2002). A key issue is the foundation
or legitimisation of claims made in the name of human rights. If the very denition of human rights implies they are
only claimable against elected majorities and thus against normal forms of democratic decision-making, who is legitimate
sovereign of those claims? Closely linked to this: which procedures ensure the legitimisation problemdoes not ultimately
lead to abuse or dilution of the language of human rights? This is pertinent given almost any moral claimcan be expressed
in this language, e.g. does the right to education have the same status as the right not to be tortured, as both are afrmed
by the Universal Declaration? At issue is how to distinguish (and legitimately) more and less relevant claims made in the
language of human rights. Not unrelated to the above is the challenge from theorising that problematises the very idea of
progressing rights. Much inuenced by Heideggers critique of modernity, concerns are raised about contradictory and total-
itarian possibilities and dimensions in so-called emancipatory or progressive drives, including in grand universal narratives
of legitimation (see Lyotard, 1984; Kolb, 1986; Ross, 1988; Alvesson and Willmott, 1992; Doornbos, 1992; Norris, 1993;
Ray, 1993; Squires, 1993; cf. Arendt, 1958; Bronner, 1994). For Lather (1991), this problematisation suggests a break with
universalising metanarratives (in favour of the particular and appreciation of realitys messiness) and the humanist view
of the subject as autonomous and stable (Lyotard, 1984; Fraser and Nicholson, 1988; Garnham, 2000).
A related challenge stems fromafrmations of diversity. For cultural relativists, human rights are Eurocentric, promoting
Western individualism and rights hardly compatible with more communitarian ways (Tharoor, 2000, 2001; Brunkhorst,
2
To give an example: freedomof speech can be called a human right only once the individual is enabled to revoke a decision that inhibits his freedom
of speech, although made by the democratic majority, in a court of law(Dworkin, 1990; Van der Walt, forthcoming).
3
Harvard LawProfessor and UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Human Rights and Business.
4
Besides Ruggies very inuential initiative, a number of NGOs and private initiatives have also put human rights high on the agenda of international
business regulation. To mention only some of them: Human Rights Watch; Amnesty International; The Global Reporting Initiative; The Business Leaders
Initiative on Human Rights.
S. Gallhofer et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 22 (2011) 765780 767
2001; Hussein, 2000).
5
They are not neutral but expand Western cultural imperialism. Worse, they will speak for others so
as to ironically repress them(Derrida, 1978a,b; Gore, 1993; Weeks, 1993; Biesta, 1995; Gallhofer et al., 1999, 2000; see also
Douzinas, 2007, in the context of seeking to rescue the emancipatory potential of human rights).
Another challenge to rights discourse, rst articulated by Bentham, was famously raised in the post-war constellation
by German-Jewish philosopher Arendt (1949, 1951). It concerns effective rights enforcement in political practice. Howare
rights reectinguniversal moral standards tobeexercisedunless legislatedinpositiveenforceablelaw?
6
Arendts description
of international organizations failure to provide security to millions of refugees of national socialist Germany is surely the
most striking example of the uselessness of un-institutionalized human rights.
Inthe humanrights andbusiness agenda the concerns are noless pertinent, givencorporations social role andlegal status.
Human rights emerged to protect (world-) citizens against their own States; they concern the Statecitizen relationship.
As non-state actors, companies are traditionally not in this. Where lies their responsibility to respect and safeguard human
rights? The concerns must be answered convincingly if we are to show that human rights provides a promising remedy
against globalisations social, environmental and political challenges. Below, we outline an idea of human rights responding
to the concerns raised including vis--vis the agenda with business.
A classic way to restrict human rights language to counter potential dilution of its force is to distinguish three rights
categories: negative liberties, rights to democratic participation and socio-economic rights.
7
If these are taken as equally
important for protecting the legal subjectivity of a personhood, it serves to identify among them fundamental or core
rights. The latter have traditionally been articulated as negative liberties. Socio-economic rights have been relegated to the
rights spectrums periphery, where dilution and abuse risk appeared high. In contrast to this, which is substantively based on
the distinction between negative liberty and positive entitlement rights, Amartya Sen has a newidea of core rights. For Sen,
human rights are those rights enabling people to act as free agents. As conditions for individual freedomare substantively
social, these rights cannot be reduced to negative individual liberties but must include capabilities relating to the individ-
uals social existence (1993, 1999). For Sen, humanrights protect peoples capability to engage inall social practices coming
to guarantee the autonomous subsistence of an individuals life. Given that human autonomy is conditioned by biology and
society, both determine core capabilities denitive of viable human rights (Nussbaum, 2000; see also Nussbaum and Sen,
1993). The capability approach thus relates the rights to empirical observation of realistic life chances, avoiding abstract
speculation or blanket assumptions engendering meaningless rights proliferation and concomitant dilution. Capabilities
denitive of core social rights in a context of extreme poverty differ from those dening rights in wealthy countries. And,
the content of actionable rights depends on observable basic living conditions (Sen, 1993, p. 31). Likewise, if for differing
reasons, Ruggie is against a predened list of rights for which companies are to be accountable:
. . .(B)usiness can affect virtually all internationally recognized rights. Therefore, any limited list will almost certainly
miss one or more rights that may turn out to be signicant in a particular instance, thereby providing misleading
guidance. At the same time as economic actors, companies have unique responsibilities. If those responsibilities are
entangled with State obligations, it makes it difcult if not impossible to tell who is responsible for what in practice.
Hence, this report pursues the more promising path of addressing specic responsibilities of companies in relation to
all rights they may impact. (Ruggie, 2008, p. 4).
That is: the content of core rights cannot be xed. It is more fruitful to determine those rights in empirical context
if, in doing so, distinguishing between more or less crucial rights in a given situation must not be neglected. The ability to
distinguish in a meaningful situation-sensitive way, after all, characterises the capabilities approach.
8
5
Further, Tharoor (2000, 2001) highlights that, for some, human rights as a universal discourse serves as a kind of ag of convenience for other more
questionable political agendas. For Tharoor (2000, 2001), human rights rhetoric may cover for Western intervention in the developing world, an instrument
of Western neo-colonialism.
6
Benthamfamously rejected a natural rights tradition in Britain that went back at least to Locke (and that in Benthams time was embodied in the US
constitution) (e.g. Waldron, 1987): Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense nonsense upon stilts. . .
(Bentham, 2002) (another critique of natural rights comes from the pragmatist school, who maintain that notions of rights reect that society is based
at most on a temporary consensus, Brunkhorst, 2001). Several points may be made regarding Benthams view. Bentham was especially concerned to
emphasise the importance of backing up rights by law: Right. . .is the child of law: fromreal laws come real rights. . .fromimaginary laws come imaginary
rights (Bentham, 2002). Without legal backing, a key point is that Bentham would have seen rights as secured in practice, if at all, only by phenomena
such as wealth, brute force and chance. Further, it is crucial to appreciate regarding the argument here that Benthamwas indeed not opposed to the idea
of a right expressing a moral claimfounded on the principle of utility (Schoeld, 2003). And, again crucial for rescuing Benthamhere, Benthams concern
with utility both linked rights to well-being but also did not imply that Benthamwas unconcerned about the rights of every individual (see Gallhofer and
Haslam, 2003, a critique of Benthamthrough a critical theoretical lens). Benthams viewmay be seen to be pessimistic by some communication, advocacy,
exposure and informed public disclosure may be inuential without depending on legislation (Sen, 2004): consistent with a view of rights as principally
ethical articulations rather than legal commands (Sen, 2004).
7
In the 1949 Universal Declaration, Article 3-14 refers to negative liberties in terms of the right to life, liberty and security of the person, freedomfrom
torture or slavery. Article 15-2 denes rights to democratic participation including the right to citizenship, property and religion. Article 22-9 refers to
socio-economic rights including the right to work, equal pay and access to health care.
8
Sens (2004) emphasis on the process-aspect of freedommay be read as a means of adjusting the implications of the capability-approach according to
overriding equity considerations. Sen (2004), consistent with a pragmatist view, also calls for open public reasoning to distinguish between more relevant
and less relevant claims.
Questioning the very idea of progressing human rights risks a displacing of the potential of reason in a critique of and in
an intervention to improve governance practices. It risks rendering little more possible than continual evasion or deferral
of a political envisioning of social betterment, let alone effort to realise the vision (Leonard, 1990, p. 259; Critchley, 1997,
p. 357). If usefully challenging, such questioning may be taken to problematic extremes, as when it is as if anything goes
except the metanarrative, a position tending to the very dogma it would challenge (Kellner, 1988; Alvesson and Willmott,
1992; Nederveen Pieterse, 1992; Best, 1995;

Zi zek, 2000a). Avoiding metanarratives, for the particular, risks myopic failure
to critique the social whole and may counter support for the oppressed (Leonard, 1990; Alvesson and Willmott, 1992;
Zi zek, 2001). We must appeal to values and a moral horizon at some point beyond scepticism, including valuing highly,
pragmatically, politico-ethical solidarity, if we are to surpass values in effect irreconcilable to a basic critical theoretical
position (Hudson, 1989; Rorty, 1989; Alvesson and Willmott, 1992; Nederveen Pieterse, 1992; Harvey, 1993; Benhabib,
1994). This critiqueshould, however, cautionagainst over-simplicationanddogmainprogressinghumanrights,
9
consistent
with cautious pragmatism resting on more modest epistemology and eschatology. Laclau (1990, 1996) and Nederveen
Pieterse (1992) highlight the difculty of aligning a myriad of diverse interests (and identities and rationalities), which, for
Laclau (1990, 1992), are dynamic in social interaction.
10
This has a resonance for projects giving some emphasis to human
rights especially expansively and to dilemmas over human rights given resource constraints.
11
A pragmatic or open approach may be taken when human rights require denition vis--vis diversity. The late 1980s
marked vociferous cultural relativism when cultural anthropologists, political leaders of emerging post-colonial countries
as well as Western postmodernists questioned universal claims of the rights discourse (Van der Walt, 2006). Todays debate
moves beyond this relative-universal dichotomy. A universality respecting cultural differences is pursued respect for
differenceitself is recognisedas auniversal principle(Ayton-Schenker, 1995; McNay, 1992; Calhoun, 1995; Humphries, 1997;
Brown, 2000). The choice is not between universalismand particularism, but between different kinds of universalism.
12
For
Walzer (1994) and Rawls (1993), different philosophical and religious traditions can reach similar conclusions about moral
principles despite their diverse trajectories. Rawls invokes a notion of overlapping consensus on rights ensuing frominter-
cultural dialogue. For Rawls, all cultures subscribe to some idea of human dignity equalling trans-cultural rights. Cultural
diversity itself does not impede these (cf. Rawls, 1971; Walzer, 1983; Gewirth, 1988; Renteln, 1990; Charlesworth et al.,
1991; United Nations, 1994; Patman, 2000; Li, 2001; Meijer, 2001; Noor, 2001; Brysk, 2002; Donnelly, 2003; Magnarella,
2003; Pillay, 2008). A cross-cultural perspective is afrmed by the Sudanese-American lawyer Abdullali Ahmed An-NaIm
(1992), whose work shows howcore Islamic concepts reconcile to modern human rights through a re-interpretation of the
Quran.
13
A universalism respecting difference is universality that is not uniformity, recognising valued particularities attendant
upon different cultural phenomena. For Lister a differentiated universalism can reconcile the universalism...at the heart of
citizenship with the demands of a politics of difference (1997, p. 28). Universalismrespectful of difference aims to listen to
the voice of the other, combining openness to difference with solidarity ethics (Fraser, 1986; Arrington, 1990; Leonard, 1990;
Arrington and Puxty, 1991; Young, 1993). Openness to particularities can informnewversions of universality (Gallhofer and
Chew, 2000; Gallhofer et al., 2000).
How do these observations impact upon the role business plays in the human rights agenda? How can respect for such
rights be part of corporate responsibility in the globalised economy? Can transnational companies (TNCs), from a legal
perspective, be held accountable at all for human rights breaches? These questions relate to scepticism regarding rights
9
Such critique, as well as questioning crude universalist bluntness, has problematised: over-simplifying perspectives on social phenomena as if unam-
biguous (Gallhofer and Haslam, 1991; Lather, 1991; Alvesson and Willmott, 1992; Prokhovnik, 1999; Gabardi, 2001); logics of necessity integral to some
critical thought; associated overly optimistic pretensions for rationality; notions of a single revolutionary act constituting the emancipated state resolving
all substantive issues of well-being (including human rights); notions of a privileged emancipatory agent - necessarily or capable of identifying with global
human interests with privileged insight; and, of some pertinence here, associated notions of pure knowledge that would render all transparent and
radically break repressive power (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985; Kolb, 1986; Aronowitz, 1988; Laclau, 1990, 1992; Leonard, 1990; Alvesson and Willmott, 1992;
Mouffe, 1993b; Biesta, 1995; Gabardi, 2001).
10
This struggle to develop equivalential links involves a tension between more ideal and more pragmatic tendencies in praxis, including in relation to
the potential of a human rights discourse.
11
Consistent with a continuumthinking, Laclau (2000a) refers to a protracted war of position tending to more global aims, with universality albeit its
pervasiveness per se an horizon (froma particular perspective) rather than mobilised as dogma. In relation to praxis in this respect, abandoning the idea
of a particular agent being privileged does not imply that particular agents irrelevance (Derrida, 1978a,b; Nederveen Pieterse, 1992; Gallhofer and Haslam,
1995; Laclau, 2000b;

Zi zek, 2000a,b). Awareness of the challenges and openness to taking themseriously are integral to projects that would govern well,
including in the name of human rights. The awareness may lead to greater effective radicality (Squires, 1993). If practices of accountability, transparency
and accounting are to be legitimately mobilised for expansive notions of human rights, we should conceive of them on a continuum and move beyond
a dichotomous thinking that sees them as necessarily good or bad (Prokhovnik, 1999; Gallhofer and Haslam, 2003; see Alvesson and Willmott, 1992;
Wertheim, 1992). Nederveen Pieterse (1992) calls for emancipatory and progressive direction that is more subtle, multiple and modest than the modern
way of seeing. We would need to critically reect on the forces - interests, identities and rationalities - we are to be properly guided by and be cautious in
intervening, asking if we may counter what we seek.
12
Reference has even lately been made to a communitarian universalism(Rasmussen, 1990; Mouffe, 1993a; Benhabib, 1994; Butler, 2000; Laclau, 2000b),
something that would have been seen as an irredeemable contradiction in earlier debates.
13
Hayden (2001) also notes that many traditional beliefs are similar to those found in modern human rights ideology (the Akan of West Africa are
given as an illustration). While such trans-culturalismand reconciliation has been substantive in this area, the Islamic Cairo Declaration of Human Rights
(see, for instance, http://wwwl.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodeclaration.html), albeit also containing much in common with Western declarations, was
produced in response to the UN declaration and commentators nd its positions on religion and women controversial (Kazemi, 2002; Smith, 2003).
enforceability. Firstly, there is no procedure for enforcing the rights ininternational law. Only national lawformally regulates
companies. If there are some solid international agreements and elements of international law specically for companies,
the norms thereby dened have to be implemented at State level. An example is the UN anti-corruption treaty. It lays
down international standards that are only enforceable by national laws. The same applies for international human rights
conventions and treaties. Their application and enforcement depends on national laws and procedures.
We now face a situation where most nations have incorporated human rights into their legislation. Yet, the paper law
does not prevent regular rights breaches. A well known case is child labour in India. If India has excellent rights law pro-
hibiting child labour, NGOs and ethical investors often report child labour abuse there.
14
The issue, then, is failure to enforce
prohibitions due to weak governance. When enforcement is non-existent or fails, mere existence of national rights lawwill
not sufce.
Another issue in the complex relation between human rights, TNCs and international law is horizontality. As noted,
rights traditionally concernthe Statecitizenrelation, emerging toprotect citizens against their State onthe vertical level and
companies, on the horizontal (where private law subjects interact), are not included. Traditionally, only States can violate
human rights directly. Yet, companies may have liability or responsibility for human rights. Ruggies (2008) framework
denes differentiated but complementary responsibilities of States and businesses vis--vis human rights. This frame rests
on three core principles: the State duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business; the
corporate responsibility to respect human rights; and the need for more effective access to remedies (p. 4). It is sufcient
here to develop the difference between State and private company duties. For Ruggie (2008, p. 7): States have a duty to
protect against human rights abuses by non-State actors, including by business, affecting persons within their territory or
jurisdiction. Corporations, on the other hand, have a duty to respect human rights as dened in such soft lawinstruments
as the Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprise and Social Policy and the OECD Guidelines
for Multinational Enterprises (p. 8). Consensus exists among larger TNCs that companies are expected to obey the law, even
if it is not enforced, and to respect the principles of relevant international instruments where national lawis absent.
15
The duty to respect rights means not to infringe on others rights or, simply, to do no harm. As business activities can
affect all internationally dened rights, companies should have due diligence, a process whereby companies not only ensure
compliance with national laws but also manage the risk of human rights harmwith a view to avoiding it (Ruggie, 2008, p.
8). Thus States and companies have different responsibilities in promoting and safeguarding human rights.
16
As specialised
economic organs of society, companies duties cannot simply mirror State duties.
Yet, for Ruggie, there is a case in which corporations human rights duty surpasses enforcement procedures nationally
and soft law and voluntary approaches internationally. At issue is the concept of complicity, one crucial for our purposes.
When a companys activity is complicit in a State violating human rights, this can be subject to international criminal law. If
companies involvement in a States rights abuses may be called indirect, the complicity makes the company liable: The legal
meaning of complicity has beenspelledout most clearly inthe area of aiding andabetting international crimes, i.e. knowingly
providing practical assistance or encouragement that has a substantial effect on the commission of a crime. . .companies
may also incur non-criminal liability for complicity in human rights abuses (Ruggie, 2008, p. 20). The most striking cases
of this new development are suits led under the Alien Tort Statute in the US.
17
This Statute, a one-sentence law enacted
in 1789 authorizing foreign nationals to le US civil action against those violating the law of nations has of late been oft
used to sue major TNCs for alleged complicity in crimes overseas, including torture and murder. Defendants need only have
some regular business contact with the US to be vulnerable. A prominent recent case forced Royal Dutch Shell to pay $15.5
million to settle a claimthat it was complicit in the Nigerian governments execution of activists protesting against Shells
Nigerian oil production. Another series of big suits, so-called apartheid lawsuits, continue. Apartheid victims in South Africa
accuse several major TNCs of having aided and abetted rights violations by providing goods and services to the apartheid
regime. Corporations may avoid similar risks by institutionalizing procedures of due diligence in corporate management,
helping avoid complicity with State human rights violations.
Insum, businesses humanrights dutyturns onthreeprinciples: 1. Thecontent of rights is denedfromempirical evidence
and circumstances and not derivable from a xed list. 2. Dening rights claims is part of an intercultural dialogue aimed
at overlapping consensus affording no party superior denitional powers. 3. International companies duty to promote
and respect human rights is legally under-dened. Proper effect is only given to this duty by continuing due-diligence
efforts to monitor and promote rights protection and record all abuses. This indicates a role for accountability, transparency
14
According to a BBC report of 2006, over 11 million children are forced to work in India. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5059106.stm, also cf. the 2006
International Labour Organisations report on child labour: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc95/pdf/rep-i-b.pdf).
15
International Organization of Employers, International Chamber of Commerce, Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Business and Human Rights: The Role of Government in Weak Governance Zones, December 2006,
paragraph 15, http://www.reports-and-materials.org, quoted in Ruggie (2008, p. 8).
16
Clapham (2006) makes several suggestions for how international law could be developed further here. He notes several examples of international
treaties, as the one on corruption, nancing terrorism and trafcking by organized criminal groups that show that international law treaties are indeed
used to address the behaviour of legal entities such as corporations (p. 241). Much depends on the will of political bodies to take these approaches
further towards human rights regulations for TNCs (see also Claphamand Jerbi, 2001; cf. Sykes, 1984; International Council on Human Rights Policy, 2001;
McBarnett et al., 2007; Kobrin, 2009).
17
For more details see the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre: www.business-humanrights.org/SpecialRepPortal/Home.
and accountings, encompassing at the micro-organisational level conventional nancial and broader social responsibility
accountings and their equivalents at the State and other levels (subter). In our world, in practice even what we may think
of as core rights are breached. Perrys (1997) point that discrimination, conict, authoritarianism and impunity continue
remains relevant. So, in tackling this more substantively, what role may accounting, accountability and transparency have?
We turn to this below.
3. Elaboration on accountings potential vis-a-vis human rights: corporate responsibility and accounting
At rst glance, the concerns elaborated and our responsiveness to them do not imply a very positive accounting role.
Many accountings may be held over simplied vis--vis various rights and howthey relate. If any intervention in the name
of rights is questionable, surely there is a danger that an accounting intervention would be too blunt as well as crudely
universal. And if accountings have regulatory potential they often lack legal force. Yet, various accountings are already
playing a positive role in relation to human rights. And a general point is that dimensions of the concerns raised, especially
as arising in theoretical discourse, are a spur to praxis generally
18
and thus to intervention in and through accounting. If
uncertain (and ignorant), we may gain a sense of a greater responsibility to act. If we appreciate that respecting difference is
a universal principle, we may pursue a more meaningful universalism. Some dimensions of the concerns indicate the case
for legislative intervention.
Further, one may even suggest that accounting (including accountability and transparency), on critical reection, has
particularly an enhanced positive role vis--vis the concerns. The theoretical reection suggests the relevance of analysing
detailedspecicities of the social, consistent withthe productionof detailedaccounts.
19
LaclauandMouffe (1985) andLaclau
(1990) argue that a goingbeyondtotalisingperspectives inrelationtoemancipationmay implicate unleashingpositive forces
in terms of a radical democracy.
20
An emphasis upon radical democratic forces is a spur to accountability, transparency and
accounting including counter accounting (the challenging of ofcial/hegemonic accounts by unofcial/counter hegemonic
accounts, advocated by Bentham, e.g. the alternative accounts on corporations produced by Corporate Watch, see Gallhofer
and Haslam, 2003; Gallhofer et al., 2006). Communication, information and accountability are key terms in a discourse
of democracy (Bronner, 1994; Gallhofer and Haslam, 2003). And responding to the challenge of aligning diverse interests,
Laclau (2000a) suggests construction of languages, again indicating accountings. These modes of communication could be
built to provide that element of universality making possible the establishment of equivalential links between or hegemonic
articulations of various particular emancipatory interests and demands (a relative universalization) in context (Laclau and
Mouffe, 1985; Laclau, 2000b). These include languages of and about accountability, transparency and accounting, resonating
with Bronners (1994) promotion of accountability from a view explicitly aligned to the German critical theoretical per-
spective (see Calhoun, 1995). The notion of emancipations plural, to which human rights, expansively, may be reconciled,
stimulates development of emancipatory accountings. Thus, we are responsible to positively align accounting and human
rights, if vis--vis complexity, uncertainty, instability and contingency.
21
There is at least a suggestion here that accounting has a legitimate role in the globalised context (Gallhofer and Haslam,
2006) in supporting concerns to protect and promote human rights. Howmay accounting be better mobilised vis--vis these
concerns? Howmay we hold States and non-State actors (e.g. corporations) liable or responsible for rights abuses? Froma
contextual and continuumperspective, several accountings including potentially emergent forms may better serve human
rights. Our mainfocus here is corporate accounting (various kinds, including counter accounting focusedonthe corporation).
The questionmay rst be consideredinmore detail: howshouldone render the corporationliable andaccountable for human
rights?
3.1. On the corporations responsibility in relation to human rights
If until quite recently, for historical reasons, humanrights were seennear exclusivelyinterms of State duties toindividuals
(Ratner, 2001),
22
there have long been concerns about the power of the corporation as a non-State actor and its social
duties. NGOs evidence e.g. workers rights abuses internationally and advocate sanctions (Meyer and Stefanova, 2001).
The corporation has been labelled a kind of republic or State (Gallhofer and Haslam, 1995). Globalisation has especially
engendered and promoted a discourse clear in work of NGOs such as Publish What You Pay (PWYP) (subter) and Human
18
This is with the dissipation of the logic of necessity and the notions of a privileged agent and pristine revolutionary knowledge. It is precisely the decline
in great myths that Laclau understands as leading to freer societies where human beings see themselves as agents of change of their own world (Laclau,
1990, p. 216). People can directly assert the legitimacy on their own terms; social struggles can be seen as wars of interpretations in which the very
meaning of demands is discursively constructed through struggle. Laclau (1990) stresses the signicance of contingency and pragmatic values of solidarity.
19
This is anencouragement tofocusedsocial analysis, or account, of accountinginaction. Detailedcontextual analysis is further promotedbyphilosophical
discourse emphasising the case for paying attention to detail and reecting awareness of the dangers of an excessive and problematic dogmatism and
universalism(Gallhofer and Haslam, 2003).
20
For Nederveen Pieterse (1992), democracy is a recurrent theme in the contemporary re-orientation of emancipatory thought.
21
And this should be in projects concerned to create as well as prevent something. One can properly construct a more positive vision or sketch of a future
society, if recognising it as such and acknowledging its instability (Bronner, 1994; Gallhofer and Haslam, 2003).
22
To some extent more recently, and prior to the very recent relative emphasis upon the corporation, duties have also been invested in individuals
themselves.
Rights Watch (but also in UN Codes and State and EU developments
23
). This concerns the relevance of investing business
corporations albeit their structures differing fromthose of States and individuals and other non-State actors with duties
(Clapham, 1993, 2006; Weissbrodt, 2000).
24
The TNCs are the most notable case. On the one hand, they are seen to have great
power in the global systemtranscending the power of the nation State and are more embedded in the host States economy
than ever (Strange, 1996; Held and McGrew, 2000; Gallhofer and Haslam, 2006). Corporations can shift activities to States
with fewer/less stringent human rights regulations. States face trade-offs vis--vis politico-economic interests. For instance,
foreign investment, job creation and resource inow may involve severe compromise to other local interests but States
may in effect have to accept that. The situation is worsened if the locally powerful see wealth and turn to corruption. Some
positive benet of TNC investment may be dissipated and individual TNCs may have limited power against that (Gallhofer
and Haslam, 2006, 2007). Some States are very lax (even complicit in abuses) in return for foreign investment, doing little
to monitor corporate behaviour. The downside is in the compromises that local States make (Ratner, 2001; Clapham, 2006).
Concurrently, TNCs are coming more to be seen as and as seeing themselves as providers of social benets that States would
have earlier tried to provide (Ratner, 2001). And the rise of concerns about business complicity in human rights abuses has
been increased by online reporting, facilitating public opinions mobilisation (Gallhofer et al., 2006).
Tackling the issues raised vis--vis human rights as noted, no less pertinent for corporations than individuals indicates
that accountings provide a very promising remedy against the social, environmental and political challenges of globalisation.
For Ratner (2001), a companys duties to at least protect human rights are a direct function of its capacity to harmhuman
dignity. Further, these duties vary, ceteris paribus, as a function of the tendency of or in accordance with particular criteria.
These duties increase as a function of a corporations ties to the State (and its agencies). Barring in respect of severe abuses
(where corporate duties to individuals are deemed clear and immutable), the duties to individuals grow along with the
corporations associative ties to the individuals. Duties also depend on a balance between the rights at issue and business
interests and business rights both of these reecting the character of a business corporation (Ratner, 2001).
25
3.2. On the role of accountings for the corporation
The moral force of corporations to act upon humans in ways that are rights-based contestable implicates the corporate
nancial reporting nowseen as conventional and other possible discourses and practices of accounting and accountability.
What role, then, is and may be played by the nancial accounting promoted by the International Accounting Standards Board
(IASB) and similar accountings (perhaps State prescribed or quasi-law)?
26
What role is and may be played by other corporate
accountings (or accounts or reports of the corporation), whether prescribedinlaw, taking the formof quasi-lawor voluntary
manifestations (the word voluntary here in quotation marks as these disclosures may be inuenced by e.g. stakeholder
pressures, Ratner, 2001; Gallhofer and Haslam, 2003)? Such questions go beyond concerning conventional accounting, if
they include that, to e.g. broader forms of corporate social responsibility accounting including counter accounting. How is
universality respectful of difference of relevance here?
We may suggest initially that nancial accounting transparency, corporate and State level, is relevant, alongside other
forms of transparency (e.g. the States reporting of human rights violations and/or progress) (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2007).
27
The linkage of resources and human rights suggests a role for nancial transparency in placing pressure on State and non-
State actors in the name of human rights. Appreciation that there are serious human rights problems that may be alleviated
through spending in States with vast amounts of natural resources (the African state of Angola may be a case in point as
there is signicant poverty and related problems but massive resources of oil) give rise to questions indicating a role for
nancial accountings.
Government accounts, potentially, for instance, indicate resources devoted to tackling human rights issues, including
those related to serious poverty (including monitoring child labour). If a State has many issues but does not spend even what
it can reasonably afford on relevant programmes to tackle the issues, that would tend to make visible the States (effective)
23
The work of the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank in promoting foreign investment has also engendered debate. The UN, IMF and World Bank have
been concerned to suggest Codes for scal transparency and reducing corruption (Ratner, 2001, p. 482). States have in effect recognised corporate duties in
prescribing international labour law, environmental law, anti-corruption law and economic sanctions. The EU has directly placed duties on business (see
Ratner, 2001, p. 488).
24
Human Rights Watch (1999) accused a number of international oil companies in Nigeria of co-operating in the governments suppressing political
opposition. Clapham(1993) delineates fragmented centres of power, a phenomenon most evident in the context of globalisation. Various bodies, including
corporations and quasi-ofcial bodies but also other associations, including NGOs, Trade Unions and political parties, may be understood to now have to
be included in that which constitutes the public sphere and repress or alienate individuals.
25
Within corporate structures, responsibility attribution has been deemed to depend on the degree of substantive control exercised by the corporation
over the agents involved in the abuses, not easy to determine in practice (Ratner, 2001, pp. 5245). Also, Ratner (2001, p. 525) suggests that fault is not a
required element of responsibility in respect to corporate agents acting under corporate authority.
26
The IASBs IFRSs/IASs have come to substantively reect an Anglo-American perspective (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2003); they may be thought of as a
kind of soft law (Ratner, 2001).
27
We are not taking a naive viewon transparency here but a pragmatic one. Transparency in practice may translate into the worst kind of public relations
whitewashing. Alsoanydisclosure (especiallywiththe stampof professional expertise) might re-assure anddisplace attentionfromsomethinginsignicant
ways. And some forced transparencies (and their auditing) may impact badly on potentially valuable trust. Yet, the absence of transparency is arguably
the worst case in this context; so long as there is awareness of the less than pristine potentials of transparency in practice, it can play a role that is more
positive than negative (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2003).
lack of concern about and complicity in peoples suffering. We may imagine some usages of State income or resources that
are better than others paying for food programmes may be better than paying for the property investments of a perhaps
corrupt ofcial (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2007). Such welfare economics choices cross over into human rights violations very
quickly where there is an expansive notion of human rights. If there is a failure to stop core rights abuses, their impact if
made transparent may carry greater force. Choices vis--vis local conditions of abject poverty might clearly look negative
and create pressure.
Corporate nancial accounts could indicate the amounts that particular corporations pay to a State.
28
If the payment is
relatively large, the pressure ona State to account for its usage wouldincrease. If a payment was relatively small, the pressure
on the corporation may increase as its small contribution to a State in (desperate) need may be highlighted. Concurrently, as
has been happening more often recently, where corporations have directly nanced programmes to tackle abuses this may
be disclosed through corporate accounts, potentially in reasonable and informative detail.
Where corporations operate in States where there are human rights abuses, including no effective addressing of serious
poverty, this may be disclosed through an accounting, as may be the consequences of the withdrawal of the corporations
fromthe State in question. Corporate child labour abuse and other violations can be reported. This indicates the need for a
more holistic accounting in this area, this being accounting, not constrained to the nancial, encompassing all dimensions
of corporate operations of social interest (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2003). The reporting may inuence ethical investment,
consumerism, trading and decision-making.
Where corporations effectively violate human rights or are complicit in their violation (perhaps in collusion with the local
State), some formof accounting may make this transparent. For instance, companies paying inappropriately low wages to
workers for work in unacceptable conditions may be reported upon. Details of labour costs could expose child labour abuses
and detailed accounting could cast light on similar violations. Again this accounting may inuence ethical investment,
consumerism, trading and decision-making (including by States and international institutions).
29
In principle, corporations may be required to report vis--vis the interests of local cultures. As we shall elaborate, there
have been abuses of local cultures amounting to human rights violations. A well regulated and audited reporting could
reect serious consideration of how a corporation impacts upon, including negatively and threateningly, local culture. A
way forward would be to formally give a voice to local people so that the local context and the negative forces and dangers
may informthe modes of governance and accounting (Gallhofer and Chew, 2000).
4. Accounting in action: illustrations of relevance in the context of globalisation
What happens in practice? The presence or absence of rights-serving accountings in practice, the degree of their under
realisation, partly reects outcomes of political struggle in context. As already pointed out, accountings already serve various
human rights and we shall indicate ways in which accountings have been serving human rights better, although this area is
under researched. By exploring accounting in action we may better get insights for ways forward.
An expansive view of rights at the very least challenges current ways. In this regard, critical social analyses of actually
existing accountings indicate that accounting is not fully captured by any particular political group or hegemonic force. This
is so whether the focus is on accountings reecting campaigns for greater corporate social responsibility (CSR) or on nancial
accountings that substantively do reect the hegemony of an Anglo-Saxon real world capitalistic order. The point here is
that actually existing accountings in general, while they will reect the hegemony of their context, are not fully captured
and can come to the service of diverse, conicting and relatively repressed interests in the (dynamic) context (see especially
Lehman and Tinker, 1987; Gallhofer and Haslam, 1991, 2003). Further, the consequences of accountings mobilisation in
practice, again whatever accounting considered, are ambiguous (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2003). We should stress that that
this is not to deny that substantive dimensions of the dominant types of accounting and dimensions of other types, more
often than not or in most part in practice reect prevailing hegemonic forces. Thus, voluntary manifestations of apparent
corporate accountability (e.g. vis--vis socio-environmental responsibility) are often problematic public relations reecting
hegemonic interests. Even counter accounting is not mobilised froman Archimedean point beyond the hegemonic forces of
the socio-political order (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2003; Gallhofer et al., 2006).
Below, we begin to explore more substantively the bringing of accounting into action in practice in ways that are at least
suggestive of its role and potential vis--vis human rights, if also indicative of the challenges involved. We are concerned
to learn about actual and potential functionings of accounting in this regard as well as insights into the character of various
types of accounting in practice. We are also concerned to gain insights into strategic intervention in and through accounting
in context.
28
Currently they do not. Thus, we are ignorant, from the accounts, as to how much a TNC operating in Angola pays to the Angolan government. The
payment may be in the formof taxes but also e.g. royalties, fees and licenses (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2007).
29
The viewthat corporations have negative impacts on social well-being more generally has long been integral to critical perspectives on society, e.g. in
Marx (Ratner, 2001, p. 443).
4.1. Reections on corporate social accounting and corporate social responsibility in practice
Ostensibly, campaigns for CSR, with attendant forms of corporate social accounting (CSA), may be geared to regulating
business vis--vis human rights. This is clearer when a more expansive view on human rights is taken but has a relevance
concerning core rights too. Indeed, analysis of the more expansive position or related relevant illustrations may shed light for
the focus upon core rights. Campaigns for CSR/CSA have indicated the limitations vis--vis corporate responsibility of a pure
focus on prot (or, latterly, shareholder wealth) maximising and related legal compliance. CSR and related CSA (including
environmental accounting) may in principle help ll a governance gap by encouraging corporate management attitudes
and practices conducive to human rights support and by re-enforcing the same through inter-linkages with potentially
inuential ethical consumer and investment movements.
30
In practice, research suggests that CSR and CSA have played a more dubious role, being not at the service of human rights
but of problematic and relatively powerful forces. Corporations have embraced various dimensions of CSR in strategies
of regulatory capture so as to displace or avoid alternative, tougher, regulations (see Compa and Hinchcliffe-Darricarrre,
1995). Forms of CSA amount often to public relations of the more dubious kind: white- or green-washing (e.g. Gallhofer and
Haslam, 2003).
Several TNCs, NGOs and representatives of the US and British government developed voluntary human rights principles,
operationalised into codes (Vogel, 2005). These are not far-reaching and voluntary, being found unenforceable. Business
initiatives, unsurprisingly, are limited by the business case for a CSR beyond the conventional goals (in practice itself differ-
ing between temporal and spatial contexts). The UNs Global Compact promotes and emphasises the business case (United
Nations, 2006).
31
Vis--vis legislative and quasi-legislative regulation, corporations typically insist on minimal standards.
Concurrently, however, they have an interest in standards that benchmark to limit the cost of excessive free-for-all com-
petition over CSR. And indeed, they may refrain fromlobbying over human rights issues, on the grounds that they should
properly be neutral, while lobbying strongly for business rights like intellectual property rights (Banerjee, 2007).
Organisational models reecting ostensible attention to CSR typically align with a stakeholder approach to corporate
governance. This is in the sense that stakeholders, beyond the shareholders, are deemed to be owed duties of care and
attention fromcorporate management, and to have rights to various accountings. This stakeholder approach, however, may
be problematised. There are various possible stakeholder approaches. In practice, more popular models tend to concentrate
on powerful stakeholders. Indeed, some are little more than functional for the shareholder or agency models that the liter-
ature often denotes mainstream, scarcely promoting overcoming the constraining boundary of the business case. Weaker,
marginalised, stakeholders (e.g. children who may be being abused, indigenous people) are given less attention, receiving
less adequate accountability information (Banerjee, 2007).
If CSR/CSA has been relatively easily captured by forces not making human rights (whether expansively or narrowly) a
priority concern (to some extent reecting competitive pressures), it is over simplication to reduce the argument to these
terms. Neither is it appreciative of the context to argue that CSRis fully capturedby hegemonic forces andsimply buttresses a
problematic socio-political order. There are cases of CSR/CSA in practice that do appear progressive and counter hegemonic.
Although the inuence of the UNs Global Reporting Initiative has been more limited than might be desirable, it gives some
explicit attention to human rights in its provisions (www.globalreporting.org). Counter and related forms of accounting,
which may be explicitly mobilised outwith the corporation to challenge ofcial disclosures, has had some impact. There
are inuential NGOs and ethical investment and consumer movements that campaign for and employ various forms of CSA,
including counter accounts. This has been an activity long on-going, indicating its value to campaigners. Organisations like
Corporate Watch see value in contrasting CSA disclosures, through counter accounting, with what organisations actually do
(Gallhofer and Haslam, 2003; Gallhofer et al., 2006).
4.2. The case of the rights of indigenous peoples
Indigenous peoples are a good example of a marginalised group. Relatively recently, there has been increased awareness
and recognition of their rights. As we shall suggest more substantively, corporate regard for indigenous people has been
poor and not kept up with the increased awareness of their plight in the broader culture.
Whether one refers to the mainstream accounting basically aligned to the shareholder model or to the CSA acknowl-
edging and reecting different users and usages (and contents), these phenomena have far less than countered colonial and
imperial practices that have been destructive to indigenous culture (Gallhofer and Chew, 2000). For instance, Neu (2000),
30
There are, at the same time, issues where corporations depart fromconventional economic goals to the extent such goals have a positive dimension.
Distortions arising may in some cases outweigh benets. This underscores the case for proper regulation of the (global) context to corporate decisions.
31
Further, the WTO has in effect been countering strong regulation itself in deeming ethical consumerism, national environmental laws, social welfare
nets and safety regulations unfair trade practices. US lawyers suggested that Nelson Mandela would still be in prison if the current trade rules had been
in place at the time of his release (Hertzi, 2001; Banerjee, 2007). For the WTO, the business rights it promotes in practice outweigh the right to health or
life if this is modiable by strong local government (e.g. the US) (Banerjee, 2007). Commentators for environmentalism, who might agree that wealthier
corporations and nation states shape international trade rules and point to their need to be responsible and use their power wisely, may still put the onus of
sustainable development upon the worlds poorer masses (see Shiva, 1991, 1993; Wilson, 1992; Hawken, 1995; Banerjee, 2007, p. 107; cf. United Nations,
2002).
focusing upon Canadas indigenous people, argues that accountings have helped to translate neo-colonial policies into prac-
tice with the consequences of reproductive and cultural genocide and ecocide (see also the related negative impacts traced
in Neu, 1999). This is a striking example of howaccountings may come to be strongly bound up in human rights violations.
For Gibson (2000), accounting practices, displacing social and cultural values by economic imperatives, played and still
play an insidious role in the dispossession of the Australian aboriginal (see also Greer and Patel, 2000; cf. Gallhofer et al.,
1999).
Corporate activity, as notable in resource extractions (e.g. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 1984; Gibson, 2000;
Greer and Patel, 2000), has often impacted negatively (in terms of socio-cultural dislocation and ecological destruction) on
local populations, especially the relatively weaker and more marginalised populace, such as the indigenous communities.
And this has involved human rights violations. More generally, development policies have effectively protected business
corporations rights but denied the rights of local farmers and indigenous cultures (Watts, 1999; Abrahamsen and Williams,
2005; Ong, 2005; Banerjee, 2007).
Again, if accounting has tended to accentuate the negative for indigenous and local peoples, a more hopeful and positive
role for accounting is possible. Several studies have elaborated howaccountings, conventional (subter) and otherwise, may
come to serve local including indigenous peoples better (see Gallhofer et al., 1999, 2000; Gallhofer and Haslam, 2007). In
Aotearoa NewZealand, enhanced concern about indigenous culture has led to more actual and proposed reportings tending
toserveindigenous cultural interests. InGallhofer et al. (2000), theauthors gofurther insuggestingthat indigenous principles
are consistent with a more holistic accounting that may better serve people generally beyond the local and indigenous.
4.3. A Financial accounting case
Ostensibly, conventional nancial accounting does little to directly serve human rights, aside from being substantively
(if not perfectly) concerned to serve property rights.
32
It is often understood critically as substantively serving the interests
of global capitalistic forces blinkered on conventional wealth maximisation.
33
Yet, not only has CSR/CSA positive potential,
so does mainstream accounting itself. Historically, Gallhofer and Haslam (1995) indicate that what we now think of as
conventional accounting was once considered radical and avant garde, an encouragement to radical democratic and even
revolutionary forces. For Stiglitz (e.g. 2002), accounts, even if produced formally to at least broadly serve a particular interest,
are the focus of conicts of interest and will come to be used for different purposes and interests and be seen in different
ways (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2003, 2007).
34
Gallhofer and Haslam(2007) elaborate a case of conict over usage of conventional accounting that may be understood to
relate to human rights. The following re-interprets the case in these terms. Pressures by campaigners to increase disclosure,
including corporate nancial accounting disclosure, at the intersection of conventional accounting and an accounting of use
in the campaign against poverty and related deprivations and abuses (e.g. child labour) have manifested in recent times.
Again, the case more obviously illustrates a case of accounting vis--vis a more expansive understanding of human rights.
But it at least indicates possibilities in relation to core rights and in some cases, it may be stressed, one is trying to tackle
and eradicate abject poverty and related abuses such as child labour. PWYP has been a prominent NGO campaigner in this
respect (Gallhofer andHaslam, 2007).
35
As we have notedfor sucha case, if corporations were requiredtodisclose the various
amounts they pay to governments, then pressure may be placed on them(e.g. it may be seen that their small payments to the
local governments may be unreasonably small). Further, corporations could be required to disclose any involvement in child
labour abuse. Banerjee (2007, p. 102) fears the nancial and business risks of violating human rights may be outweighed by
the benets of investment in corrupt regions. Disclosure may change this (if Banerjee himself is relatively pessimistic).
36
Focusing on corporate accounting, many TNCs follow international standards (the IASBs IFRSs/IASs). Why do these not
require disclosure of the relevant information? A rst consideration of the IASBs policy documents appears to provide
the answer. IASB policy suggests that serving shareholders perceived (conventional nancial/nancial theoretical) inter-
ests and potential investors in nancial information in effect serves everyone elses needs (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2007; cf.
Humphreys and Loft, 2009). The shareholders and investors are broadly understood in terms of mainstreamnance theory,
being interested in the returns and risks associated with corporate holdings and potential investments. Campaigners have
pointed out, however, that the information they want disclosed would be very much consistent with and a derived impli-
32
Indirectly, if imperfectly, it may add to the size of available economic resources.
33
The accounting is often understood to reect the demands of the shareholder model, including being thus portrayed by the policy makers, albeit that
it has never done this in terms of the purer capitalistic rhetoric of its advocates: it may serve the powerful nancial interests of a real world imperfect
context and in practice reect that reality (see Tinker, 1985; Gallhofer and Haslam, 2007).
34
As an example (focused upon economic operations and outcomes), accounts that make visible prot-making may raise issues about the monopolistic
nature of an organisation and about howthe value added by a business is shared.
35
There have alsobeengovernment andsupra-governmental initiatives notably the UKgovernment backedExtractive Industries Transparency Initiative
(EITI), which encourages TNCs to disclose the relevant information voluntarily and the G8s call for greater nancial accountability of States in this area.
These initiatives call for voluntary action and have had little regulatory force, and there has been little co-operation from either companies or States
(Gallhofer and Haslam, 2007).
36
If governments wererequiredtodisclosewhat theydidwiththemoneythis mayalsopressurisegovernments. Banerjee(2007) argues that if government
misuse revenues generated by TNCs, the TNCs themselves are increasingly being deemed culpable for this (e.g. in terms of the allegations of complicity in
corruption).
cation of the IASBs policy and framework as stated. This is because disclosing the nancial ow to individual States from
a TNC (and the same may be said for payments to children) is helpful in assessing the nancial riskiness of an ownership
stake in the TNC (Murphy, 2004, 2005; PWYP, 2005a,b; Tax Justice Network, 2005).
37
It is recognition of the power of regu-
latory possibilities and ethical investment and consumerism. It is simply a question, fromthis perspective, of disaggregating
nancial information (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2007).
Why then is such disaggregation not prescribed by the IASB? Analysis suggests the answer may be articulated with two
basic insights. Firstly, the economic reality of the IASBs context does not correspond to the pristine vision implicit in their
policy.
38
The economy is imperfect, suggesting limits on the information that might be disclosed.
39
Secondly, accounting
does not stand outside of politics. The IASB, as an institution, needs to be accepted to survive.
40
That makes it subject to
nancial, corporate and State hegemonic interests and even if the IASB were to want something disclosed it faces issues of
realpolitik (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2007; cf. Humphreys and Loft, 2009).
In practice, what factors are crucial vis--vis, for instance, PWYP concerns? It is unlikely that economic costs are so crucial
given the possibilities of online reporting (Gallhofer et al., 2006) and that many TNCs already have the disaggregated
information for internal control purposes. Additional audit cost should be minimal (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2007). Much
more likely, the political is the substantive issue. Accounting is subject to conicting political pressures, whatever form
it actually takes the point is appreciated by Stiglitz (2002). This, however, in turn suggests the possibility of progress
vis--vis concerns to better link, for instance, accounting to human rights issues if enough pressure can be put on the
global institutions then the accounting issue may be tackled. Either the IASB might be changed and/or other bodies focusing
on broader responsibility and accountability issues (such as the Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability, ISEA) would
become more inuential. As it is, the IASBs dialogue withother global institutions has beenenhanced (Gallhofer and Haslam,
2007). Of course, in struggle and change the underlying issues would likely transformin advance of enhanced transparency
and accountability.
5. Ways forward
We have noted that one of the issues at least threatening human rights operationalisation is the way TNCs power may
transcend State powers. In this context, TNCs may be very weakly regulated including vis--vis human rights. The cost of this
situation is regularly well illustrated by NGOs such as Tax Research, Tax Justice Network and The Association of Accountancy
and Business Affairs.
41
The economic cost is enormous, by their reported calculations. Further, the NGOs indicate howvarious
forms of corruption are rendered dangerously easier (exacerbating the problem). Not to understate this, concurrently there
aredangers intheidea of a worldgovernment or parliament, evenif formallydemocratic. Engels lookeduponthereservations
in terms of mankinds fear of itself, but the fears are not to be taken lightly. The possibility, even under a veil of democracy, of
a newkind of global imperialism, or a yet further extension or enhancement of what we have now, is real enough. One aspect
of this is evident in those calls suggesting e.g. that Asia restrict its economic development because of global warming when
historically the West has brought about the bulk of the problem: clearly embracing global justice in this context is going to be
difcult for the West, if a gradual and more holistic approach may still have merit. Optimistic (or realistic?) campaigners are
pushing seriously for a world government or parliament. In the context of environmental crisis and globalisation that quite
visibly at least threatens to impact on global standards and safety nets, there is strong support for such an idea. A serious but
avoidable environmental crisis must constitute a threat to even core human rights (see Held and McGrew, 2000; Gallhofer
and Haslam, 2006). Without effective co-ordination of global activities (and indicators are not good), we may well come
to regret the absence of an effective world government. The latter appears some way off, however, and we have indicated
substantive problematic dimensions, so it is important to consider what else may work.
One alternative starting point is to arrive de facto at the more positive possibilities of the above scenario by developing a
body of international lawthat would recognise business obligations to protect human rights. Clapham(2006), for instance,
advocates such a way forward and stresses the case for UNgovernance of business in respect of human rights. The approach
with the clearest afnity to an enabling form of world governance is to try to get all States to substantively enact the
same legislation (or alternatively all the worlds courts might develop the law). The States would monitor corporations.
This indicates a form of accounting (and auditing) and additional corporate disclosure (and auditing) might be one of the
possible additional sanctions. In practice, problems associated with this model include that different States currently place
37
Little attention has been given in this area, whether by the IASB or the NGO campaigners, to a principle of universalismthat is respectful of difference.
But it is the case that rights frameworks in practice have tried to reect this principle and also that commentaries on accounting indicate the potentiality
of such a principle (see Wippman, 1997; Gallhofer and Chew, 2000).
38
Indeed if this pristine version were reality there is a real question whether a standard setter such as the IASB would be required at all.
39
For instance, disclosing information (and having it audited) has clear associated direct nancial costs in context that are not stressed in IASB policy
documents. Further, information disclosure on corporate activities can encourage collusion and monopolistic/oligopolistic behaviour and restrict research
and development innovations. In a real world imperfect markets context, secrecy has a value (Lipsey and Lancaster, 1957; Puxty and Laughlin, 1983;
Gallhofer and Haslam, 2007).
40
The IASBs history and membership reects Anglo-American capitalistic hegemony. Like many NGOs, the IASB is not formally accountable to anyone
(Gallhofer and Haslam, 2007).
41
All these NGOs have websites that are regularly updated, providing great material for other NGOs, interested citizens and students.
different demands oncorporations. States argue over their interpretations of territoriality(responsibilityfor acts withinones
borders) and nationality principles (jurisdiction over a business incorporated in the nation State). Some States dread the
costs of acting, some may fear foreign policy repercussions. If one State tried to regulate corporate conduct vis--vis human
rights it might face protests by others who might term universal jurisdiction illegitimate (Ratner, 2001). For Meyer and
Stefanova (2001), one advance is imposing economic penalties on national governments. International treaty construction
here promises binding codes of conduct. If the international institution thus founded is to prescribe and apply hard lawthen
the international community must agree upon its legitimacy and expertise and viewit as being effective in lawenforcement
(McDougal and Reisman, 1981).
Corporations might also develop their own voluntary codes of conduct and many codes now exist. A substantial
claim here, which applies to much CSA (see Gallhofer and Haslam, 2003), is that such codes amount to problematic pub-
lic relations exercises (e.g. Gallhofer and Haslam, 2003). Companies have been accused of taking the initiative to avoid
stronger external regulation or uniform standards across all industries (Compa and Hinchcliffe-Darricarrere, 1995). They
may in some cases be serious responses to stakeholder pressure (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2003, acknowledge such a possi-
bility vis--vis CSA). And sometimes they are collaborations with NGOs involving e.g. social labelling, if typically around
a limited range of human rights issues (typically forced labour, child labour, employment conditions and the right to
unionise) (Ratner, 2001). Many interested in the codes of conduct approach stress the need for transparency here and
the same debates exist in this area as in the CSA literature (see Gallhofer and Haslam, 2003). Some want independent
monitoring/auditing to enhance the transparency most codes do not have a monitoring provision (US Department of
Labour, 1998) while it is also acknowledged that the monitoring, ostensibly independent, may in practice be weak
and subject to capture (Avery, 1999; Greenhouse, 2000). Corporations also compete in the market place and this may
drive down capacity to act on issues beyond the nancial. A corporation taking a strong stance risks losing a States
co-operation.
42
Some would give a big role to NGOs, not only in counter accounting but in responding to collaborative opportunities to
scrutinise, promoting the adoption of more detailed norms and helping to monitor the codes (Ratner, 2001; Gallhofer and
Haslam, 2003). It is important that NGOs are themselves accountable in this context (Unerman and ODwyer, 2006a,b).
Soft international law parallels the voluntary codes and suffers fromthe same kinds of problems (supra). Ratner (2001)
suggests that the ILO, OECD, UN and World Bank are all possible actors to initiate soft law but also points to issues with
them. It is important that corporations, governments, victimrepresentatives and NGOs participate in prescribing and apply-
ing law. Inthis respect the ILOdoes not include all the potential groups of rightholders inits deliberations. The OECDexcludes
developing world States, which is highly problematic here. The UN appears suited to the part but only weak support for
the UN exists in the US. In 2005, the UN created an expert mandate on business and human rights but little substan-
tive progress is recognised if on paper the potential is considerable (Jerbi, 2009). The World Bank has begun to consider
human rights in its decisions (Bissell, 1997) but has a way to go to convince as a drafter of guidelines on corporate con-
duct encompassing concern with human rights. The IASBs standards and those of the currently less inuential ISEA have
some features of soft law as international standards, albeit that particular States and the EU effectively make the IASBs
standards law-like especially for larger corporations. Bilateral understandings between e.g. the UN and IASB may emerge
the PWYPs activities did ostensibly push the UN and the IASB to closer collaboration (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2007). As
suggested, a new form of corporate accountability is needed in the context. Stock Exchanges have a role to play as they
may require standards, including of disclosure, for listing. Indeed, key Stock Exchanges (organised into an international
body) have required companies to follow the IASBs standards. Stock Exchanges still, however, compete with each other
too.
43
None of these more pragmatic ways forward look especially promising. Ratner (2001) suggests that the UN and the
WTO might set up a monitoring body to receive reports fromState and non-State actors including fromcorporations. State
accounting or reporting would put these reports out so that they are on public record. A variant of this would set up State
bodies or agencies to impose sanctions. Alternatively, domestic enforcement and a system of investigations and sanctions
could be stressed. The law here offers a common language and a set of enforceable standards, constituting progress. At the
margin, and in practice reecting realpolitik, such pragmatic ways forward may improve things.
Another variant of a pragmatic wayforwardwouldtake the formof a complaints bodyandmechanismaimingtoempower
the people. It would have an ofce in every country and might be funded by the UN. A teamof researchers, administrators
and lawyers would accept complaints (a bit like a NGO) and feed information into a larger information network giving rise
to reputational damage. Such a process could be supported by ethical consumer and investor activity. Accounting would
become again more important and auditors would be given greater responsibility.
44
42
Thus, if a State may have little power against corporations in general (given a desire for the inward investment) they may have power in respect of
particular corporations. This may be translated, however, into an interest in secrecy and corruption (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2007).
43
As do accounting standard setters. The IASB has potential rivals for its role, notably the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), albeit that
currently the IASB and FASB are engaged in a convergence process. Campaigners forming part of the PWYP coalition have thus been involved in lobbying
various bodies, including Stock Exchanges and FASB (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2007).
44
A similar initiative is found in the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises, which provide for National Contact Points, ofces
responsible for encouraging observance of and publicising the guidelines in a national context. A 2000 review enhanced a commit-
6. Concluding comments
What we have aimed to do is to delineate key issues regarding linking accounting and human rights. We have suggested
that accounting properly has a key role to play in this context. We have made reference to relevant illustrations. In exploring
practice, we have seen positive dimensions of accounting but have indicated the need for progress. This is important if
accounting is to better serve the public interest, internationally and explicitly the professions commitment indeed it is so
for theIASB, whichhelps underscoreits potential (Gallhofer andHaslam, 2007). Inpursuingways forward, we coveredseveral
possibilities. Some were more pragmatic than others but it was difcult to be very optimistic, especially if an expansive view
of (categories of) human rights is taken. Nevertheless, we have delineated some substantive ways forward that may be
helpful in promoting the protection of human rights, more especially those that are properly termed core.
45
And we have
indicated howgovernance is required to operationalise human rights in practice, which is clearly to give accounting a role.
We have pointed to a need for struggle towards better governance and holistic and counter accounting, making use of
advances in communicative technology. We have indicated action that might steer things along a progressive channel. We
hope we encourage further research in this important area.
Acknowledgements
The paper was presented on the Accountability and Human Rights: Seminar Four of the ESRC Research Seminar Series,
When worlds collide: Contested paradigms of CSR, 1 September 2009, and the authors acknowledge the constructive
feedback received. The authors also beneted fromthe helpful and encouraging comments of the editors and reviewers.
References
Abrahamsen, R., Williams, M.C., 2005, The globalization of private security, http://users.aber.ac.uk/rbh/privatesecurity.
Alvesson M, Willmott H. On the idea of emancipation in management and organization studies. Academy of Management Review1992;17(3):43264.
An-NaImAA, editor. Human rights in cross-cultural perspectives: a quest for consensus. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1992.
Arendt H. The rights of man: what are they? Modern Review1949;3(1):2437.
Arendt H. The origins of totalitarianism. NewYork: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; 1951.
Arendt H. The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1958.
Aronowitz S. Postmodernism and politics. In: Ross A, editor. Universal abandon? The politics of postmodernism. Edinburgh Edinburgh University Press;
1988.
Arrington CE. Intellectual tyranny and the public interest: the quest for the holy grail and the quality of life. Advances in Public Interest Accounting
1990;3:116.
Arrington CE, Puxty AG. Accounting, interests and rationality: a communicative relation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 1991;2(1):3158.
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Aborigines and uranium: consolidated report to the minister for aboriginal affairs on the social impact of uranium
mining on the aborigines of the northern territory (197984). AGPS: Canberra; 1984.
Avery, C., 1999. Business and human rights in a time of change, http://www.business-humanrights.org.
Ayton-Schenker, D., 1995. The challenge of human rights and cultural diversity, UN Department of Public Information, DPI/1627/HR, March.
Banerjee SB. Corporate social responsibility: the good, the bad and the ugly. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2007.
Benhabib S. In defence of universalism yet again! A response to critics of situating the Self. NewGerman Critique 1994;2(Spring/Summer):17389.
Bentham J.Schoeld P, Pease-Watkin C, Blamires C, editors. Rights, representation and reform nonsense upon stilts and other writings of the French
revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 2002. pp. xviii, 486.
Best S. The politics of vision: Marx, Foucault, Habermas. NewYork: Guilford Press; 1995.
Biesta G. Postmodernismand the repoliticization of education. Interchange 1995;26(2):16183.
Bissell R. Recent Practice of the inspectorate panel of the world bank. American Journal of International Law1997;91:7414.
Bronner SE. Of critical theory and its theorists. Oxford: Blackwell; 1994.
Brown C. Universal human rights? An analysis of the human-rights culture and its critics. In: Patman RG, editor. Universal human rights? New York: St.
Martins Press; 2000.
Brunkhorst D. The universal declarationof humanrights: origins, signicance andfuture. In: Meijer M, editor. Dealing withhumanrights: Asianandwestern
views on the value of human rights. Bloomeld, CT: Kumarian Press; 2001.
Brysk A, editor. Globalization and human rights. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2002.
Butler J. Competing universalities. In: Butler J, Laclau E,

Zi zek S, editors. Contingency, hegemony, universality: contemporary dialogues on the left. London:
Verso; 2000.
Calhoun C. Critical social theory: culture, history and the challenge of theory. Oxford: Blackwell; 1995.
Charlesworth H, Chinkin C, Wright S. Feminist approaches to international law. American Journal of International Law1991;85:61345.
ClaphamA. Human rights in the private sphere. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993.
ClaphamA. Human rights obligations of non-state actors. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
Clapham, A., Jerbi, S., 2001, Towards a common understanding of business complicity in human rights abuses, http://www.globaldimensions.net/
articles/cr/complicity.html.
Compa L, Hinchcliffe-Darricarrere T. Enforcing international labour rights through corporate codes of conduct. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law
1995;33:66389.
ment that all such ofces should be visible, accessible, transparent and accountable by calling for annual reports of each ofces activity
(http://www.oecd.org/document/3/0.3746.en 2649 34889 1933116 1 1 1 1.00&&en-USS 01DBC.html).
45
Core rights are such that it makes no sense in a civilised society to talk of progress in well-being where those rights are infringed for any groups or
individual. The idea of a civilised society implies a notion of social well-being for humans as social beings. People are not so individualistic, according to
this theory: the infringement of one persons rights could not be ignored; it would seriously impact on their welfare. As an aside, this is consistent with a
particular utilitarian position. Further, it is a position that sees human rights as a dimension of well-being, if an especially crucial one.
Critchley S. What is continental philosophy? International Journal of Philosophical Studies 1997;5(3):34765.
Derrida, J., 1978a. Violence and metaphysics: an essay on the thought of Emmanuel Levinas. In: Derrida, J. (Ed.), Writing and difference, translated by Alan
Bass, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Derrida, J., 1978b, Fromrestricted to general economy: a Hegelianismwithout reserve. In: Derrida, J. (Ed.), Writing and difference, translated by Alan Bass,
Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.
Donnelly J. Universal human rights in theory and practice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 2003.
Doornbos M. Foreword. Development and Change 1992;23(3):14.
Douzinas C. Human rights and empire: the political philosophy of cosmopolitanism. Abingdon, Oxford and NewYork: Routledge-Cavendish; 2007.
Dworkin R. A bill of rights for Britain. London: Chatto & Windus; 1990.
Fraser N. Toward a discourse ethic of solidarity. Praxis International 1986;5(4):4259.
Fraser N, Nicholson L. Social criticism without philosophy: an encounter between feminism and postmodernism. In: Ross A, editor. Universal abandon?
The politics of postmodernism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 1988.
Gabardi W. Negotiating postmodernism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 2001.
Gallhofer S, ChewA. Accounting and indigenous peoples. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 2000;13(3):25667.
Gallhofer S, Gibson K, Haslam J, McNicholas P, Takiari B. Developing environmental accounting: insights from indigenous cultures. Accounting, Auditing
and Accountability Journal 2000;13(3):381409.
Gallhofer S, Haslam J. The aura of accounting in the context of a crisis: Germany and the First World War. Accounting, Organizations and Society
1991;16(5/6):487520.
Gallhofer S, HaslamJ. Accounting and modernity. Advances in Public Interest Accounting 1995;6:20332.
Gallhofer S, HaslamJ. Accounting and emancipation: some critical interventions. London and NewYork: Routledge; 2003.
Gallhofer S, HaslamJ. The accounting-globalisation interrelation: an overview with some reections on the neglected dimension of emancipatory poten-
tiality. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2006;17:90334.
Gallhofer S, HaslamJ. Exploring, social, political and economic dimensions of accounting in the global context: the international accounting standards board
and accounting disaggregation. Socio-Economic Review2007;5:63364.
Gallhofer S, HaslamJ, KimSN, Mariu S. Attracting and retaining Maori students in accounting: issues, experiences and ways forward. Critical Perspectives
on Accounting 1999;10,:773807, 6.
Gallhofer S, Haslam J, Monk E, Roberts C. The emancipatory potential of online reporting: the case of counter accounting. Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal 2006;19:681716.
GarnhamN. Emancipation, the media and modernity: arguments about the media and social theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.
Gewirth A. Ethical universalismand particularism. Journal of Philosophy 1988;85:283302.
Gibson K. Accounting as a tool for aboriginal dispossession: then and now. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 2000;13(3):289306.
Glendon MA. A world made new, Eleanor Roosevelt and the universal declaration of human rights. NewYork: RandomHouse; 2002.
Gore JM. The struggle for pedagogies: critical and feminist discourses as regimes of truth. London: Routledge; 1993.
Greenhouse S. Report says global accountancy rmoverlooks factory abuses. NewYork Times 2000, September 28
th
.
Greer S, Patel C. The issue of Australian indigenous world views and accounting. Auditing, Accounting and Accountability Journal 2000;13(3):30729.
Harvey D. Class relations, social justice and the politics of difference. In: Squires J, editor. Principled positions: postmodernismand the rediscovery of value.
London: Lawrence and Wishart; 1993.
Hawken P. The ecology of commerce: a declaration of sustainability. London: Phoenix; 1995.
Hayden P. The philosophy of human rights. St. Paul: Paragon House; 2001.
Held D. Introduction to critical theory: fromHorkheimer to Habermas. London: Hutchison; 1980.
Held D, McGrewA, editors. The global transformation reader: an introduction to the globalization debate. Cambridge: Polity in association with Blackwell;
2000.
Hertzi N. The silent takeover: global capitalismand the death of democracy. London: Arrow; 2001.
Human Rights Watch, 1999, The price of oil: corporate responsibility and human rights violations in Nigerias oil producing communities,
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/Nigeria.
Humphreys C, Loft A. Governing audit globally: IFAC, the NewInternational Financial Audit and the Auditing Profession. In: Chapman CS, Cooper DJ, Miller
PB, editors. Accounting, organisations and institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. p. 20532.
Humphries, B., 1997. From critical thought to emancipatory action: contradictory research goals? Sociological Research Online, 2, 1, http://www.
socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/1/3.html. (accessed on 20.06.02).
Hudson W. Postmodernity and contemporary social thought. In: Lassman P, editor. Politics and social theory. London: Routledge; 1989.
Hussein HT. Human rights the Asian perspective. In: Patman RG, editor. Universal human rights? NewYork: St. Martins Press; 2000.
ILO, 1989. Conventionconcerning indigenous andtribal peoples inindigenous countries, adopted27.06.89, http://ilolex.ilo.ch:1567/English/convdisp2.htm.
International Council on Human Rights Policy, 2001. Business wrongs and rights, http://www.ichrp.org/excerpts/30.pdf.
Jerbi S. Business and human rights at the UN: what might happen next? Human Rights Quarterly 2009;31:299320.
Kazemi F. Perspectives on Islamand civil society. In: Hashmi SH, editor. Islamic political ethics: civil society, pluralismand conict. Princeton: Princeton
University Press; 2002.
Kellner D. Postmodernismas social theory: some challenges and problems. Theory, Culture & Society 1988;5:23969.
Kennedy D. The international human rights movement: part of the problem? Harvard Human Rights Journal 2002;15:10125.
Kobrin S. Private political authority and public responsibility: transnational politics, transnational rms and human rights. Business Ethics Quarterly
2009;19(3 (July)):34974.
Kolb D. The critique of pure modernity: Hegel, Heidegger and after. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1986.
Laclau E, Mouffe C. Hegemony and socialist strategy: towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso; 1985.
Laclau E. Newreections on the revolution of our time. London: Verso; 1990.
Laclau E. Beyond emancipation. Development and Change 1992;23(3):12137.
Laclau E. Emancipation (s). London: Verso; 1996.
Laclau E. Structure, history and the political. In: Butler J, Laclau E,

Zi zek S, editors. Contingency, hegemony, universality: contemporary dialogues on the
left. London: Verso; 2000a.
Laclau E. Constructing universality. In: Butler J, Laclau E,

Zi zek S, editors. Contingency, hegemony, universality: contemporary dialogues on the left. London:
Verso; 2000b.
Lather P. Getting smart: feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. London: Routledge; 1991.
Lehman C, Tinker T. The real cultural signicance of accounts. Accounting, Organizations and Society 1987;12(5):50322.
Leonard ST. Critical theory in political practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1990.
Li Y. Asian values and the universality of human rights. In: Meijer M, editor. Dealing with human rights: Asian and western views on the value of human
rights. Bloomeld, CT: Kumarian Press; 2001.
Lipsey RG, Lancaster K. The general theoremof second best. Reviewof Economic Studies 1957;24:1132.
Lister R. Citizenship: towards a feminist synthesis. Feminist Review1997;57(Autumn):2848.
Lyotard, J.-F., 1984. The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge, translated by Bennington, G., Massumi, B., Minneapolois: University of Minnesota
Press.
Magnarella PJ. Questioning the universality of human rights. Human Rights and Human Welfare 2003;3:1523, 1, Winter.
McBarnett D, Voiculescu A, Campbell T. The new corporate accountability: corporate social responsibility and the law. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press; 2007.
McDougal M, Reisman W. The prescribing function in the world constitutive process: howinternational lawis made. In: McDougal M, Reisman W, editors.
International lawessays. Foundation Press; 1981.
McNay L. Foucault and feminism. Cambridge: Blackwell; 1992.
Meijer M, editor. Dealing with human rights: Asian and western views on the value of human rights. Bloomeld, CT: Kumarian Press; 2001.
Meyer WH, Stefanova B. Human rights, the UN global compact and global governance. Cornell International LawJournal 2001;34:50121.
Mouffe C. Liberal socialism and pluralism: which citizenship? In: Squires J, editor. Principled positions: postmodernism and the rediscovery of value.
London: Lawrence and Wishart; 1993a.
Mouffe C. The return of the political. London: Verso; 1993b.
Murphy R. Location, location. Accountancy 2004;March:901.
Murphy R. Digging for justice. Accountancy 2005;December:789.
Nederveen Pieterse J. Emancipations, modern and postmodern. Development and Change 1992;23(3):541.
Neu D. Presents for the Indians: land, colonialismand accounting in Canada. Accounting, Organizations and Society 1999:24.
Neu D. Accounting and accountability relations: colonization, genocide and Canadas rst nations. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal
2000;13:26888, 3.
Noor F. Beyond Eurocentrism: the need for a multicultural understanding of human rights. In: Meijer M, editor. Dealing with human rights: Asian and
western views on the value of human rights. Bloomeld, CT: Kumarian Press; 2001.
Norris C. Old themes for new times: postmodernism, theory and cultural politics. In: Squires J, editor. Principled positions: postmodernism and the
rediscovery of value. London: Lawrence and Wishart; 1993.
NussbaumM, Sen A, editors. The quality of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993.
NussbaumM. Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
Ong A. Graduated sovereignty in South East Asia. In: Inda JX, editor. Anthropologies of modernity: foucault, governmentality and life politics. Oxford:
Blackwell; 2005.
Patman RG, editor. Universal human rights? NewYork: St. Martins Press; 2000.
Perry MJ. Are human rights universal? The relativist challenge and related matters. Human Rights Quarterly 1997;19:461509.
Pillay N. Are human rights universal? UN Chronicle 2008:JuneSeptember.
Prokhovnik R. Rational woman: a feminist critique of dichotomy. London: Routledge; 1999.
Puxty AG, Laughlin RC. A rational reconstruction of the decision-usefulness criterion. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 1983;10:54359.
PWYP. Extracting transparency: the need for an international nancial reporting standard for the extractive industries. London: GWLtd; 2005a.
PWYP. International accounting standard 14, segment reporting update, submission to the IASB. London: GWLtd; 2005b.
Ratner SR. Corporations and human rights: a theory of legal responsibility. Yale LawJournal 2001;111(2001/2):443545.
Rasmussen D, editor. Universalismvs. communitarianism. Cambridge: Massachusetts; 1990.
Rawls J. A theory of justice. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press; 1971.
Rawls J. Political liberalism. Chichester, NY: Columbia University Press; 1993.
Ray LJ. Rethinking critical theory: emancipation in the age of global social movements. London: Sage; 1993.
Renteln AD. International human rights universalismvs. relativism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990.
Rorty R. Contingency, irony and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989.
Ross A, editor. Universal abandon? The politics of postmodernism. Edinburgh: Edinburh University Press; 1988.
Ruggie, J., 2008, Protect, respect and remedy: a framework for business and human rights, http://www.businesshumanrights.org/SpecialRepPortal/Home/
ReportstoUNHumanRightsCouncil/2008.
Schoeld P. Jeremy Benthams Nonsense upon Stilts. Utilitas 2003;15(1):126.
Sen A. Capability and well-being. In: NussbaumM, Sen A, editors. The quality of life. Oxford: OUP; 1993. p. 953.
Sen A. Development as freedom. NewYork: Knopf; 1999.
Sen A. Elements of a theory of human rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs 2004;32(4):31556.
Shelley PB. To a balloon Laden with knowledge. In: Hutchinson T, editor. Shelley: poetical works. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1988. p. 877.
Shiva V. The violence of the green revolution: third world agriculture, ecology and politics. London: Zed Books; 1991.
Shiva V. Monocultures of the mind: perspectives on biodiversity and biotechnology. London: Zed Books; 1993.
Smith R. Textbook on international human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
Squires J. Introduction. In: Squires J, editor. Principled positions: postmodernismand the rediscovery of value. London: Lawrence and Wishart; 1993.
Stiglitz J. Economics. 3rd edition London: Norton; 2002.
Strange S. The retreat of the state. Cambridge: CUP; 1996.
Sykes AO. The economics of vicarious liability. Yale LawJournal 1984;93:123180.
Taylor C. Human Rights: the legal culture. In: UNESCO, editor. Philosophical foundations of human rights. Paris: UNESCO; 1986.
Tax Justice Network. Tax us if you can, a tax justice network brieng paper. London: TJN; 2005.
Tharoor S. Are human rights universal? World Policy Journal 2000;XVI(4 (Winter)).
Tharoor S. Are human rights universal? NewInternationalist 2001;March.
Tinker T. Paper prophets: a social critique of accounting. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1985.
Unerman J, ODwyer B. Theorising accountability for NGO advocacy. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 2006a;19(3):34976.
Unerman J, ODwyer B. On James Bond and the importance of NGO Advocacy. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 2006b;19(3):30518.
United Nations. International convention on the rights of indigenous nations. NewYork: United Nations; 1994.
United Nations (2002), Draft norms on responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights, UN
document E/CN.4/Sub. 2/2002/13, www.Umn.edu/humanrts/links/TUCReport.
United Nations, 2006. The global compact: corporate citizenship in the world economy, www.unglobalcompact.org.
US Department of Labour, 1998. The apparel industry and codes of conduct: a solution to the international child labour problem?
http://www.dol.gov/dol/ilab/publicmedia/reports/iclp/apparel/main.htm.
Van der Walt S. Die Last der Vergangenheit und die Kulturrelativistische Kritik an den Menschenrechten, Saeculum. Jahrbuch fr Universalgeschichte
2006;2:23153.
Van der Walt, S., forthcoming. A platonic relationship? Britains history with international human rights, Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social
Philosophy.
Vogel D. The market for virtue: the potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 2005.
Waldron J. Nonsense upon stilts: Bentham, Burke and Marx on the rights of man. London and NewYork: Routledge; 1987.
Walzer M. Spheres of justice: a defence of pluralismand justice. NewYork: Basic Books; 1983.
Walzer M. Thick and thin: moral argument at home and abroad. London, Paris: University of Notre Dame Press; 1994.
Watts, M.J., 1999. Petro-violence: some thoughts on community, extraction and political ecology, http://repositories.collib.org/iis/bwep/WP99-1-Watts.
Weeks J. Rediscovering values. In: Squires J, editor. Principled positions: postmodernism and the rediscovery of value. London: Lawrence and Wishart;
1993.
Weissbrodt, D., 2000. Principles relating to the Human Rights conduct of companies, commission on human rights, sub-commission on the promotion and
protection of human rights, 52
nd
Session, para. 16, Working Paper, UN Document E/CN.4/sub.2/2000-WG.2/WP.1.
WertheimWF. The state and the dialectics of emancipation. Development and Change 1992;23(3):25781.
Wilson EO. The diversity of life. London: Penguin Books; 1992.
Wippman D. The evolution and implementation of minority rights. FordhamLawReview1997;66:597602.
Young IM. Together in difference: transforming the logic of group political conict. In: Squires J, editor. Principled positions: postmodernism and the
rediscovery of value. London: Lawrence and Wishart; 1993.
Zi zek S. Class struggle or postmodernism? Yes, please!. In: Butler J, Laclau E,

Zi zek S, editors. Contingency, hegemony, universality: contemporary dialogues
on the left. London: Verso; 2000a. p. 90135.
Zi zek S. Holding the Place. In: Butler J, Laclau E,

Zi zek S, editors. Contingency, hegemony, universality: contemporary dialogues on the left. London: Verso;
2000b. p. 30829.
Zi zek S. Did somebody say totalitarianism? Five interventions in the misuse of a notion. London: Verso; 2001.

Accountability and Transparency in Relation To Human Rights - A Critical Perspective Reflecting Upon Accounting, Corporate Responsibility and Ways Forward in The Context of Globalisation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accountability and Transparency in Relation To Human Rights - A Critical Perspective Reflecting Upon Accounting, Corporate Responsibility and Ways Forward in The Context of Globalisation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Perspectives on Accounting 22 (2011) 765780

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Zi zek S. Class struggle or postmodernism? Yes, please!. In: Butler J, Laclau E,

Zi zek S. Holding the Place. In: Butler J, Laclau E,

You might also like