[DRAFT] Business Ethics and Social Responsibility

[Inspector Carmelita Fox]

Good day WA nations of the General Assembly, I have put forward a draft proposal that may be useful. While I appreciate businesses as important to society, sometimes businesses may be too focused on the profit motive. This proposal will try to get businesses to follow guidelines to help its stakeholders and also reduce immoral behavior in companies. However I'm not sure if the proposal may be broad since it covers several things.

Business Ethics and Social Responsibility
Category: Social Justice | Effect: Significant | Proposed by Inspector Carmelita Fox

To the General Assembly:

Believes the right of businesses to pursue their own self-interest, their profit motive, and obligation to improve their performance for shareholders;

Concerned about the health of stakeholders of businesses including but not limited to consumers, employees, society, and the environment,

Worried about the unethical behavior that are committed by employees and employers for various reasons in businesses,

Confident that by having business leaders set a good example for themselves will improve their own public view and stakeholders involved,

Hereby,

Establishes an Economic Ethics Commission (EEC), which receives reports of violations of this resolution from WA member countries,

Orders that businesses create an ethics code to set a good example for themselves and urges business leaders to lead,

Ensures that businesses are responsible to the needs of their community and society through contribution to community service, philanthropy, or other activities,

Prohibits businesses from misrepresenting their products and services, lying or deceiving the public, the government, and private parties of public financial documents or other company information,

Mandates businesses to practice non-discrimination hiring and work practices based on gender, sex orientation, race, or age and to maintain and care for their own employees’ well being and health,

Ensures that businesses are adopting efforts to help protect the environment by setting standards for themselves and adopts business sustainability practices by maintain that its own present needs are met while preserving the natural resources it may use for the future.

[Kenmoria]

"How exactly would the first 'ensures' clause work? Would it mean that all businesses would have to donate to charity a portion of their profits? Also, the 'mandates' clause is covered by CoCR."

[Araraukar]

"Also, the 'mandates' clause is covered by CoCR."

OOC: Actually it both duplicates and contradicts GA #35,The Charter of Civil Rights (CoCR), since CoCR specifically allows hiring discrimination for compelling reasons, using literally this wording as an example: "such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers".

EDIT: And the Prohibits clause seems to prohibit advertizing pretty much entirely.

[Kenmoria]

"I don't see the need to create the EEC, given you only task it with receiving reports. The compliance commission would deal with non-compliance anyway, as tasked in GA #390."

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: as somebody with a passing familiarity with US corporate law, this makes me cringe. I'm sure there are other GA regulars with a better grasp on corporate law, but right now I see some significant flaws that don't comport with why businesses are organized the way they are organized.

I'll weigh in later, and try to make my US biases as minimal as possible, since US methods =/= the Only Way.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: as somebody with a passing familiarity with US corporate law, this makes me cringe. I'm sure there are other GA regulars with a better grasp on corporate law, but right now I see some significant flaws that don't comport with why businesses are organized the way they are organized.

I'll weigh in later, and try to make my US biases as minimal as possible, since US methods =/= the Only Way.

In reality, most corporations are structured only to protect themselves against liability and prosecution. The prime example being British Petroleum. Sure the corporation was prosecuted, but a corporation as an entity does not make decisions on its own. Yet due to the way corporations are allowed to be structured, the actual decision makers remain all but immune. Perhaps this draft could be redesigned to take that into consideration?

OOC: not strictly true. Corporations can immunize themselves from all negligent or recklessness liability (In the US), but not necessarily the corporation itself. Because corporate personhood is an essential concept to business entity law and has been for centuries, you can still hold the entity liable and attach it's assets.

This isn't an unreasonable scheme. Business entities exist to promote business and defray the risk of enterprise. The more duties imposed on an entity, the greater the disincentive to do business. Some duties are necessary, certainly, or a corporation would just be a criminal cartel. But I argue that only those strictly necessary should be imposed internationally.