But I dont see corporate accountability for environmental degradation and human rights abuses on the graph... Clearly I still have work to do, convincing you and colleagues at CGD to support this.
-
That's why I think it's worth distinguishing between issues/outcomes and tactics. win-win is not an inherent phenomena to be found but a strategy to take. Owen/graph I think says these issues *can* be tackled thru win-win approach...
So say the issue is natural resource governance (incl. human rights of local communities). Then Q is how can UK influence thru aid, trade, investment, diplomacy, standards, extra territorial regln of biz, financial sector etc...? Approach to corp. accountability is one lever..
-
-
Sure, sure. I wont quibble over semantics, of what's a means or an end. I do think though it would be awesome if clever people at CGD tried to work out the relative gains and merits of feasible versions of each of these items on the graph, and showed their relative placements.
-
But on something as politicized as ‘migration’ defining it as ether the means or the end is really important otherwise you’ll end up with investments in interventions that can be harmful to the people affected by them.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
... Then Q is is trying for win-win a good idea for this issue and what works in practice? If approach to corp accountability is not win win on some level (eg: help to manage risk, level playing field w other cos) then impact might be just to drive UK biz out of difficult places?
-
Well, what is win-win depends on the context If you have strong public demand for responsible business practices & sustainability, like in the Netherlands, then it makes sense for business to undertake human rights due diligence, so as to avoid risks of being implicated in abuse
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.