Global Justice and Corporate Responsibility

What Do We Owe to the World's Poor?

In his article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” (1972), Peter Singer posed a question that changed the discussion of global ethics: if you can prevent something bad (the death of a child from malnutrition) without sacrificing anything morally significant — you are obliged to do so. The distance between you and the sufferer has no moral significance.

The consequence is radical: wealthy people in developed countries are obliged to give a substantial portion of their income to help the poorest in the world — up to the point where the next dollar given to charity brings you more benefit than harm. This goes much further than traditional notions of charity as a voluntary act above and beyond duty.

Thomas Pogge suggested a different approach: global poverty is not simply a misfortune that we can alleviate. It is the result of an unjust international system that wealthy countries support: trade rules, debt regimes, support for corrupt regimes. We are not just failing to help the poor — we are actively harming them. This creates a negative duty (not to harm) which is stricter than a positive one (to help).

Transnational Corporations and Human Rights

When a transnational corporation uses suppliers in a country with low labor standards, who is responsible for violations of the rights of workers?

The traditional business response: we act within the confines of local law; improving working conditions is the responsibility of local governments. The criticism: corporations actively choose suppliers with the lowest standards, exploiting the gap between countries; their influence over suppliers is sufficient to demand adherence to basic standards; local governments are often corrupt or weak.

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011, “Ruggie Principles”) establish a tripartite framework: states have a duty to protect human rights; enterprises have a duty to respect human rights (including in the supply chain); both must provide access to remedies.

“Due diligence” in the field of human rights is a key concept: companies are obliged to identify, prevent, and mitigate negative impacts on human rights from their activities and supply chains. France (2017), Germany (2021), and the EU (CSDDD Directive, 2024) are turning this into a legal requirement.

CSR and Stakeholder Capitalism

The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has evolved from “do no harm” to “actively create value for society.”

Milton Friedman (1970): the only social responsibility of business is to increase shareholder profit within the law. This is motivated by libertarian ethics and the competence argument: managers know how to run businesses, not how to solve social problems.

Stakeholder theory (Edward Freeman): a corporation is responsible to all interested parties — shareholders, employees, suppliers, customers, communities. Long-term profit is possible only by balancing the interests of all stakeholders.

Business Roundtable Declaration (2019): 181 of the largest US companies signed a document renouncing the primacy of shareholder value in favor of obligations to all stakeholders. Critics: these are fine words without accountability mechanisms; in the next crisis, they will revert to shareholder interests.

ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) — sustainability metrics — have become a requirement for investors and regulators. But what exactly is being measured, who is verifying, how much do these indicators reflect real impact — all remain the subject of heated debate.