Florian Wettstein

The significance of multinationals in shaping globalization is largely undisputed. This paper argues that any agent of substantial change should, at the same time, be an agent of justice. However, while multinational companies have played instrumental roles in shaping the world in the past, they have done so with seemingly little genuine concern for the systematic advancement of global justice. Granted that the corporate social responsibility movement is still making strides, but it arguably only scratches the surface of a more holistic understanding of corporations as agents of justice. An understanding of corporations as agents of justice crystallizes around their impact on the structure of society. In other words, a perspective on justice addresses the political role and stature of multinational companies. It is, fundamentally, about corporate power and influence - and about the political responsibilities that are inevitably connected to it.

Human rights have not played an overwhelmingly prominent role in CSR in the past. Similarly, CSR has had relatively little influence on what is now called the "business and human rights debate." This contribution uncovers some of the reasons for the rather peculiar disconnect between these two debates and, based on it, presents some apparent synergies and complementarities between the two. A closer integration of the two debates, as it argues, would allow for the formulation of an expansive and demanding conception of corporate human rights obligations. Such a conception does not stop with corporate obligations "merely" to respect human rights, but includes an extended focus on proactive company involvement in the protection and realization of human rights. In other words, the integration of the two debates provides the space within which to formulate positive human rights obligations for corporations.

Recent months have heralded a surge in companies publicly taking a stand on social and political issues such as gay marriage legislation. This paper argues that such "corporate political advocacy" raises new conceptual challenges, which have not been accounted for in existing theories of the firm. Furthermore, it poses normative challenges not yet addressed in current theories of corporate responsibility. And lastly, it poses practical challenges and dilemmas for managers who are confronted with it in their own organizations. This article addresses all three challenges: first, it defines corporate political advocacy and distinguishes it from other, perhaps more familiar forms of corporate political involvement. Second, it attempts to make normative sense of corporate advocacy by depicting it as an element of corporate responsibility. Third, it reflects on the practical implications deriving for managers dealing with this issue in practice.

In summer 2011, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz launched a highly publicized campaign against the prevailing political climate in the U.S. and the respective “lack of cooperation and irresponsibility among elected officials as they have put partisan agendas before the people’s agenda.”1 Building a coalition with other corporations, they pledged “to withhold any further campaign contributions to elected members of Congress and the President until a fair, bipartisan deal is reached that sets our nation on stronger long-term fiscal footing.”2 Furthermore, in an open letter to his “dear fellow citizens,” he called upon all citizens to send a message to their elected officials in which to remind them “that the time to put citizenship ahead of partisanship is now.”3 Schultz’s political advance raised eyebrows not only in the corporate and political communities, but also among scholars concerned with questions of business ethics and corporate responsibility. Noted business ethicists Andy Crane and Dirk Matten, for example, commented: “For a business leader like Schultz to come out and so explicitly take a stand that effectively seeks to hold his domestic politicians to ransom until they do his bidding represents a fairly unique twist on the growing involvement of business in politics.”

The transition of the UN mandate on business and human rights from the UN Special representative to the UN Working Group on business and human right has changed both thefocus and the dynamics of the broader debate on the topic. In my contribution I will reflect onthis transition and its significance for the future of the business and human rights debate.Starting with some thoughts on past achievements, I will then outline some of the majorconceptual and practical challenges that still lay ahead. Furthermore, I will provide anargument for the continuing importance of normative-critical research in the field despite, or perhaps precisely because of its shifting focus on questions of implementation anddissemination and the current tendencies of consolidation and mainstreaming of the debate