پیمان جهانی به مثابه یک موافقت نامه مکمل جهت تنظیم گری شرکت های چند ملیتی (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
پیمان جهانی سازمان ملل متحد، هم اینک با بیش از 23 هزار شرکت کننده داوطلب، بزرگترین طرح مبتکرانه سازمان ملل در به عضویت درآوردن شرکت های چندملیتی ذیل یک موافقت نامه است. انگیزه پیمان، استحصال اصول حقوق بشر، کار، محیط زیست و فسادستیزی، در هنجار شرکت های چندملیتی است. این پیمان که در سال 2000 در شورای اقتصادی و اجتماعی سازمان ملل تصویب شد، در نوع نگرش تنظیم گری شرکت های چند ملیتی، تفاوتی اساسی با دیگر توافقات بین المللی دارد. در این پیمان، دولت ها نقشی در تنظیم گری شرکت های چندملیتی ندارند و سازمان ملل راساً، شرکت های چندملیتی را با ابزارهای گفتگو، یادگیری و طراحی پروژه های مشترک، به رعایت ضوابط کارآمد غیرالزامی از طرف خودشان ترغیب کرده است. چنین ابتکاری، سیلی از انتقادات را به همراه آورد؛ مهم ترین این انتقادات عبارتند از: اصول مبهم پیمان، استیلا سازمان ملل به دست شرکت ها و عدم پیش بینی پاسخگویی شرکت های متخلف. مقاله بر این مبنا استوار است که نیاز به پیمان در جهان امروز، امری ضروری است و اصول مبهم، به مراد مجال یافتن شرکت ها در ارائه راه حل های جدید طراحی شده و مداخله شرکت ها در سیاست گذاری موجب منظوم کردن سیاست های نانوشته و پشت پرده شرکت ها می شود و انتقاد عدم پاسخگویی شرکت متخلف، ناشی از درک ناصحیح ماهیت پیمان می باشد.The Global Compact as a Supplementary Agreement to Regulate Multinational Enterprises
Introduction The regulation of multinational enterprises (MNEs) is a critical issue, given the numerous disasters throughout history caused by their activities. As a result, the legal community has continuously sought solutions to regulate MNEs. Various efforts (e.g., U.N. conventions on human rights or the guidelines of the OECD and the International Labour Organization) have aimed to address the regulation of MNEs. However, the Global Compact initiative stands out because, unlike previous agreements, it does not assign a regulatory role to governments. Instead, it directly links MNEs to the United Nations. In 1999, then-United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, emphasized the need for what he called the Global Compact. Annan proposed, “you, the business leaders gathered in Davos, and we, the United Nations, are launching a global pact of shared values and principles that will give a human face to the global market.” His speech marked the beginning of a direct relationship between enterprises and the United Nations. Since its adoption in 2000, the Global Compact has sparked both criticism and support. As the largest and most innovative voluntary initiative of its kind, it called for the active participation of MNEs in international law. Before this initiative, the United Nations primarily engaged with the states, and the regulation was shaped by the confrontation between the states and enterprises. Naturally, any initiative operating within the rigid framework of international law is bound to face criticism. To fully understand the Global Compact, it is essential to explore its principles, identify its key members, and examine its functioning. Having provided an overview of the history and functioning of the Global Compact, the present study tried to address three major criticisms frequently directed at the initiative: 1) the Compact’s ten principles are too vague to be effectively implemented, 2) the Compact allows large MNEs to exert undue influence over the United Nations, and 3) the absence of binding executive monitoring means MNEs have no legal accountability. The objective of the study was to assess the validity of these criticisms and, where possible, refute them, thereby contributing to the further advancement of the Global Compact. Literature Review There are few Persian-language studies specifically addressing the Global Compact. However, a wealth of English-language research provides valuable insights into the subject. As a result, the current analysis relied on English-language sources to develop a deeper understanding of the Global Compact and its role as a regulatory framework for multinational enterprises. Materials and Methods This study employed a descriptive–analytical approach to explain and critically examine the unwritten elements, values, and policies that extend beyond the formal text of the Global Compact. It also explored their significance and status in relation to the official document, offering deeper insights into the Compact’s underlying principles. Using a qualitative methodology, the study integrated document analysis and critical discourse analysis to assess the Global Compact as a regulatory framework for MNEs. The document analysis drew on primary sources, including the official texts of the Compact’s ten principles, reports on corporate compliance, and relevant U.N. publications. Secondary sources included academic articles, books, and case studies exploring the Compact’s implementation. Critical discourse analysis was employed to examine the narratives, assumptions, and power dynamics embedded within the Compact’s framework. The discourse analysis focused on three key areas: the historical evolution of multinational regulation leading to the Global Compact, the operational mechanisms of the Compact (including its principles and stakeholder interactions), and the criticisms and limitations identified by scholars and practitioners, juxtaposed against the objectives stated in the Compact. By combining these methods, the study sought to provide a comprehensive understanding of the Global Compact’s role in global governance and its potential to address regulatory challenges associated with MNEs . Results and Discussion The findings of this study highlighted both the Global Compact’s effectiveness in promoting ethical corporate behavior and its limitations in addressing enforcement gaps. Several key insights were derived from the analysis. First, the Compact’s ten principles are closely aligned with globally recognized standards, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ILO’s Fundamental Principles of Rights at Work. Second, with over 23,000 voluntary participants, the Compact has garnered significant engagement from MNEs across both developing and developed economies, demonstrating its global reach and relevance. Third, despite its impact, the Compact has faced criticism for its voluntary nature and lack of accountability. However, this study underscored its potential as a collaborative framework that guides corporate practices and informs regulatory policies. Fourth, the Compact plays a complementary role by fostering dialogue, learning, and partnerships. In doing so, it bridges the gap between corporate self-regulation and formal legal frameworks, particularly in contexts where regulatory enforcement is weak or absent. These findings affirm the Compact’s value as a pragmatic, albeit imperfect, instrument for integrating corporate activities into the broader fabric of sustainable development and global governance. The Global Compact offers a novel framework for regulating MNEs through non-binding principles rather than traditional state-imposed regulations. The results highlighted the implications of this unique framework and its ability to address contemporary challenges in corporate accountability, human rights, labor standards, environmental protection, and anti-corruption. By emphasizing voluntary compliance and collaborative mechanisms, the Compact fosters a participatory approach that encourages businesses to internalize ethical practices organically. However, criticisms regarding its vagueness, susceptibility to corporate capture, and lack of enforceability remain significant. This study argues that such criticisms overlook the Compact’s intended role and purpose—not as a rigid regulatory instrument, but as a platform for learning, dialogue, and innovation. Furthermore, the Compact complements existing regulatory frameworks by bridging gaps in state and international governance, promoting transparency, and cultivating a culture of ethical business practices. Ultimately, it functions as a supplementary agreement that aligns the objectives of MNEs with broader societal goals, facilitating their integration into global governance. Conclusion The present article examined the Global Compact and evaluated the legitimacy of its stated objectives. To achieve this, it was necessary to conduct a thorough assessment of the Compact’s ten principles, identify its members, and examine how it functions. The analysis revealed that the principles were designed to serve four key goals: protecting human rights, upholding labor rights, promoting environmental sustainability, and combating corruption. The Compact’s members fall into four categories: MNEs, the United Nations, non-governmental organizations, and governments. Its functioning is structured around three main components: dialogue, learning, and collaborative projects. Having offered an understanding of the Global Compact, the article addressed several criticisms associated with it. Three key criticisms were highlighted: first, the ambiguity of its principles, which fails to provide a clear framework for assessing corporate misconduct; second, the Compact’s role in facilitating MNEs’ involvement in U.N. policymaking, potentially shifting the focus toward commercial interests; and third, the absence of accountability mechanisms, allowing companies to associate themselves with the U.N. to justify their actions without consequences. Several points were offered in response to such criticisms. It can be argued that the vagueness of the Compact’s principles is intentional, providing enterprises with the flexibility to develop innovative solutions. If the principles were overly detailed, they could stifle innovation. Moreover, MNEs have historically played a significant role in shaping international policies, regardless of the Global Compact. The Global Compact, therefore, serves to formalize and bring transparency to the otherwise hidden policies of these corporations. The most fundamental criticism (i.e., the lack of accountability) was also addressed, which underscored the need for more robust mechanisms to ensure corporate responsibility. Finally, the study examined the Compact’s regulatory foundations, emphasizing that it would not seek to impose traditional regulations like other agreements. Instead, it operates beyond both national and international regulatory frameworks. Historically, regulators have prioritized enforcement, often overlooking how regulations align with industry practices. When regulations fail to reflect industry realities and needs, they can lead to inefficiencies and misunderstandings that negatively impact both governments and enterprises. The Global Compact’s true objective is not to regulate but to bridge the gap between industry concerns and regulatory practices, fostering open dialogue and mutual learning in a transparent environment.
تبلیغات
