{"title":"透明度陷阱:非财务披露与企业尊重人权的责任","authors":"David Hess","doi":"10.1111/ablj.12134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article examines the potential for transparency programs to improve corporations’ human rights performance. The primary focus is on “general” transparency programs such as the inclusion of human rights issues in sustainability reports. Regulators increasingly rely on such programs, one of which is the EU Directive on the Disclosure of Non-financial Information, which many commentators view as a model for legislation in other countries and for a business and human rights treaty. This article identifies several problems with this approach. The human rights metrics used in current sustainability reporting standards often lack validity or are based upon data that is most easily collected, rather than most important. Moreover, the empirical evidence on sustainability reporting shows continued problems of selective disclosure, impression management, incomparable disclosures, and the use of disclosure as an end in itself (as opposed to a process that leads to organizational change). To move forward, regulators should shift focus to a model grounded in regulatory pluralism. Under this approach, regulators would combine a selection of targeted transparency mechanisms to create a more complete regulatory system that corrects for one disclosure mechanism's weaknesses by including others that have complementary strengths.</p>","PeriodicalId":54186,"journal":{"name":"American Business Law Journal","volume":"56 1","pages":"5-53"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ablj.12134","citationCount":"45","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Transparency Trap: Non-Financial Disclosure and the Responsibility of Business to Respect Human Rights\",\"authors\":\"David Hess\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ablj.12134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This article examines the potential for transparency programs to improve corporations’ human rights performance. The primary focus is on “general” transparency programs such as the inclusion of human rights issues in sustainability reports. Regulators increasingly rely on such programs, one of which is the EU Directive on the Disclosure of Non-financial Information, which many commentators view as a model for legislation in other countries and for a business and human rights treaty. This article identifies several problems with this approach. The human rights metrics used in current sustainability reporting standards often lack validity or are based upon data that is most easily collected, rather than most important. Moreover, the empirical evidence on sustainability reporting shows continued problems of selective disclosure, impression management, incomparable disclosures, and the use of disclosure as an end in itself (as opposed to a process that leads to organizational change). To move forward, regulators should shift focus to a model grounded in regulatory pluralism. Under this approach, regulators would combine a selection of targeted transparency mechanisms to create a more complete regulatory system that corrects for one disclosure mechanism's weaknesses by including others that have complementary strengths.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Business Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"5-53\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ablj.12134\",\"citationCount\":\"45\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Business Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12134\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12134","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 45
摘要
本文探讨了透明度项目改善企业人权表现的潜力。主要关注的是“一般”透明度项目,例如将人权问题纳入可持续发展报告。监管机构越来越依赖这类项目,其中之一就是欧盟非财务信息披露指令(EU Directive on the Disclosure of Non-financial Information),许多评论人士认为这是其他国家立法的典范,也是商业和人权条约的典范。本文指出了这种方法存在的几个问题。目前可持续发展报告标准中使用的人权指标往往缺乏有效性,或者是基于最容易收集的数据,而不是最重要的数据。此外,关于可持续发展报告的经验证据表明,选择性披露、印象管理、无与伦比的披露以及将披露本身作为目的(而不是导致组织变革的过程)等问题仍然存在。为了向前发展,监管机构应将重点转向以监管多元化为基础的模式。根据这种方法,监管机构将把一系列有针对性的透明度机制结合起来,创建一个更完整的监管体系,通过纳入其他具有互补优势的披露机制,纠正一种披露机制的弱点。
The Transparency Trap: Non-Financial Disclosure and the Responsibility of Business to Respect Human Rights
This article examines the potential for transparency programs to improve corporations’ human rights performance. The primary focus is on “general” transparency programs such as the inclusion of human rights issues in sustainability reports. Regulators increasingly rely on such programs, one of which is the EU Directive on the Disclosure of Non-financial Information, which many commentators view as a model for legislation in other countries and for a business and human rights treaty. This article identifies several problems with this approach. The human rights metrics used in current sustainability reporting standards often lack validity or are based upon data that is most easily collected, rather than most important. Moreover, the empirical evidence on sustainability reporting shows continued problems of selective disclosure, impression management, incomparable disclosures, and the use of disclosure as an end in itself (as opposed to a process that leads to organizational change). To move forward, regulators should shift focus to a model grounded in regulatory pluralism. Under this approach, regulators would combine a selection of targeted transparency mechanisms to create a more complete regulatory system that corrects for one disclosure mechanism's weaknesses by including others that have complementary strengths.
期刊介绍:
The ABLJ is a faculty-edited, double blind peer reviewed journal, continuously published since 1963. Our mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice. We search for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law. The blind peer review process means legal scholars well-versed in the relevant specialty area have determined selected articles are original, thorough, important, and timely. Faculty editors assure the authors’ contribution to scholarship is evident. We aim to elevate legal scholarship and inform responsible business decisions.