Business, Human Rights, and Communities: The Problem of Community Contest in Development

P. Keenan
{"title":"Business, Human Rights, and Communities: The Problem of Community Contest in Development","authors":"P. Keenan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2353493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Corporations, international financial institutions, and non-governmental organizations all purport to support more community participation in development decisions. The conventional model of community consultations is flawed and is overdue for a critical assessment. This process — whether know as stakeholder engagement, free, prior and informed consent, or some other term — relies on unrealistic assumptions about the social and political dynamics of real communities. It assumes that affected communities are passive, without agency, and free of any social or gender politics. In addition, the conventional approach seeks to work changes in the process This Article challenges the conventional wisdom and argues that community consultations are important but flawed in their current form. I argue that law and policy operate in and on the real world, populated as it is with real communities and people. To the extent that the law expects to work unrealistic results or relies for its effectiveness on highly unlikely behavior, it is ineffective and should be challenged. One principal reason for this mismatch is that the conventional accounts rely on assumptions about communities that are inconsistent with the available evidence about how affected communities actually function. They are not untouched proto-democracies waiting for development and ready to embrace it, devoid of their own preferences, agency, or flaws. In addition, there is normative confusion about why community consultations are important. The goal should not be to change the communities in which corporations operate. Instead the goal should be to provide a mechanism by which affected communities can effectively engage with corporations and exercise control over their own destinies.","PeriodicalId":245576,"journal":{"name":"CSR & Management Practice eJournal","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CSR & Management Practice eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2353493","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Corporations, international financial institutions, and non-governmental organizations all purport to support more community participation in development decisions. The conventional model of community consultations is flawed and is overdue for a critical assessment. This process — whether know as stakeholder engagement, free, prior and informed consent, or some other term — relies on unrealistic assumptions about the social and political dynamics of real communities. It assumes that affected communities are passive, without agency, and free of any social or gender politics. In addition, the conventional approach seeks to work changes in the process This Article challenges the conventional wisdom and argues that community consultations are important but flawed in their current form. I argue that law and policy operate in and on the real world, populated as it is with real communities and people. To the extent that the law expects to work unrealistic results or relies for its effectiveness on highly unlikely behavior, it is ineffective and should be challenged. One principal reason for this mismatch is that the conventional accounts rely on assumptions about communities that are inconsistent with the available evidence about how affected communities actually function. They are not untouched proto-democracies waiting for development and ready to embrace it, devoid of their own preferences, agency, or flaws. In addition, there is normative confusion about why community consultations are important. The goal should not be to change the communities in which corporations operate. Instead the goal should be to provide a mechanism by which affected communities can effectively engage with corporations and exercise control over their own destinies.
商业、人权与社区:发展中的社区竞争问题
公司、国际金融机构和非政府组织都声称支持社区更多地参与发展决策。社区协商的传统模式有缺陷,早就应该进行批判性评估。这一过程——无论是被称为利益相关者参与、自由、事先和知情同意,还是其他一些术语——依赖于对现实社区的社会和政治动态的不切实际的假设。它假设受影响的社区是被动的,没有机构,没有任何社会或性别政治。此外,传统方法试图在这一过程中进行改变。本文挑战了传统智慧,并认为社区协商很重要,但目前的形式存在缺陷。我认为法律和政策是在现实世界中运作的,因为它是由真实的社区和人民组成的。如果法律期望产生不切实际的结果,或者依赖极不可能的行为来发挥效力,那么它就是无效的,应该受到挑战。造成这种不匹配的一个主要原因是,传统的描述依赖于对社区的假设,而这些假设与有关受影响社区实际运作的现有证据不一致。它们不是未受影响的等待发展并准备接受发展的原始民主国家,没有自己的偏好、机构或缺陷。此外,对于为什么社区咨询很重要,存在规范上的混淆。目标不应该是改变公司运营的社区。相反,目标应该是提供一种机制,使受影响的社区能够有效地与公司接触,并控制自己的命运。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信