Abstract
The story of technology and law has often been about the law lagging behind innovation. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) instruments, because of their transnational amenability, responsiveness to change and non-binding nature, have been increasingly deployed to fill the perceived governance gap. This chapter examines the various CSR frameworks that guide or govern online service providers (OSP), such as search engine providers, social networking providers, payment providers, and e-commerce platforms. It will focus on three influential initiatives: the United Nations Guiding Principles, the European Commission ICT Sector Guidance and the Global Network Initiative. The core question for OSPs, as with any company, is how do we make them accountable for their human rights impact? This entails analysis of some of the following questions. What value, if any, do such CSR frameworks offer to the protection of human rights online and what are their drawbacks? Relatedly, how do we know if these CSR frameworks are a success? What factors lead to the conclusion that CSR, in a given situation or sector, is an ill-suited device where more traditional legal measures are needed?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Country-level and generic top-level domain names are registered through the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which spearheaded dispute resolution for domain names with its Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). This is the model for state-level mechanisms such as Nominet.
- 2.
In a letter to Senator Durbin Twitter advised ‘it is our sense that GNI’s draft policies, processes and fees are better suited to bigger companies who have actual operations in sensitive regions.’ (Letter, Alexander Macgillvray, General Counsel, Twitter to Senator Richard Durbin, p 2)
- 3.
The GNI demand of companies is to promote the rule of law and be consistent with the Principles (Implementation Guidelines).
- 4.
It was the third phase in assessment, the first being self-reporting and the second a review of implementation of GNI policies and procedures.
- 5.
It underwent a strategic review in 2014 to determine whether it was making progress. It revised its Governance Charter and Accountability Framework ramping up its advocacy work, increasing and diversifying fundraising, streamlining its communications strategy with the public, and simplifying its independent assessment process.
- 6.
See the history surrounding the failed negotiations for a hate speech provision in the Convention on Cybercrime (2001).
- 7.
Recall the first pillar of the GPs of a duty on states to protect human rights. This relationship for internet related issues in explored in more detailed in Laidlaw 2015, chapter 6.
- 8.
References
Alexander, A. (2015, August 24). Digital Surveillance “worse than Orwell”, says new UN privacy chief. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/24/we-need-geneva-convention-for-the-internet-says-new-un-privacy-chief. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
Baumann-Pauly, D. et al. (2015). Industry-Specific Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives That Govern Corporate Human Rights Standards – Legitimacy Assessments of the Fair Labor Association and the Global Network Initiative. UNSW Law Research Paper No. 2015-12.
Bernal, P. (2011). Rise and Phall: lessons from the phorm saga. In S. Gutwirth et al. (Eds.), Computers, privacy and data protection: An element of choice (pp. 269–283). Dordrecht/New York: Springer.
Bilchitz, D. (2013). A Chasm between “Is” and “Ought”? A critique of the normative foundations of the SRSG’s framework and guiding principles. In S. Deva & D. Bilchitz (Eds.), Human rights obligations of business: Beyond the corporate responsibility to respect (pp. 107–137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blowfield, M., & Murray, A. (2008). Corporate responsibility: A critical introduction. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
British Telecom. http://www.btexpedite.com/cookie-policy/. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
Business and Human Rights Resource Centre. www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/GlobalNetworkInitiative-responses. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
California Transparency in Supply Chains Act. (2010), Cal. Civ. Code
Citron, D. K. (2014). Hate crimes in cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Companies Act. 2006 c. 46
Convention on Cybercrime. (2001), 23.XI.2001
Criminal Code RSC 1985, c C-46
Criminal Justice and Courts Act, 2015 c. 2
Deva, S., & Bilchitz, D. (Eds.). (2013). Human rights obligations of business: Beyond the corporate responsibility to respect. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.
Downes, L. (2011, March 30). Why no one will join the Global Network Initiative. http://blogs.forbes.com/larrydownes/2011/03/30/why-no-one-will-join-the-global-network-initiative/. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2013, October 10) GNI resignation letter. www.eff.org/document/gni-resignation-letter. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
European Commission. (2013). ICT Sector Guidance on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
European Commission. A renewed EU strategy 2011–2014 for Corporate Social Responsibility, COM (2011) 681.
European Digital Rights. (2013). Comments on the Guidance for the Information and Communication Technologies (“ICT”) Sector on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. http://www.ihrb.org/pdf/eu-sector-guidance/ICT/European-Digital-Rights.pdf. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
Garside, J (2011, July 26). Vodafone under fire for bowing to Egyptian pressure. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/jul/26/vodafone-access-egypt-shutdown. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
GNI. (2014). Public Report on the Independent Assessment Process for Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo. http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/GNI%20Assessments%20Public%20Report.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2016.
GNI explanation. (2014, May 26). GNI Presents 2013 Annual Report. https://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/gni-presents-2013-annual-report. Accessed Nov 2015.
GNI. (2013, February) Comments from the GNI on the Draft Guidance for the ICT Sector on the Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights. http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/GNI%20comments%20on%20EC%20draft%20ICT%20guidance.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2016.
GNI. (2012). Annual Report. http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/GNI%20Annual%20Report%202012.pdf. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
GNI. Frequently asked questions. https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/content/frequently-asked-questions. Accessed 6 Nov 2015a.
GNI list of participants. http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/participants/index.php. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
GNI. About Us. https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/about/index.php. Last visited 6 Nov 2015b.
GNI Principles. http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/principles/index.php. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
GNI, Who We are. What we do. Why it matters. https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/GNI_brochure.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2016.
GNI Core Commitments. https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/corecommitments/index.php. Accessed visited 6 Nov 2015.
GNI Implementation Guidelines. http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/implementationguidelines/index.php. Accessed 5 Nov 2015.
GNI Governance Charter. https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/charter/index.php. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
Global Witness. (2013, April 1). The Kimberley Process. https://www.globalwitness.org/campaigns/conflict-diamonds/kimberley-process/. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
Google. (2010, January 12). A new approach to China. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
HM Government. (2013). Good business: Implementing the UN guiding principles on business and human rights.
Hudson, L. (2015, October 22). 6 Experts on how Silicon Valley can Solve Online Harassment. http://www.wired.com/2015/10/how-silicon-valley-can-solve-online-diversity-and-harassment/. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
Human Rights Council. A/HRC/26/L.22
Human Rights Council. A/HRC/20/L.13
Human Rights Council. A/HRC/RES/28/16
Human Rights Council. A/HRC/RES/17/4
ICANN, Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy.
The International Bill of Human Rights comprised of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights 1966 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights 1966
The International Labour Organization’s Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. 1988
ISO 26000 Guidance on social responsibility.
Manokha, I. (2004). Corporate social responsibility: A new signifier? An analysis of business ethics and good business practice. Politics, 24(1), 56–64.
Johnson, B. (2008, October 30) Amnesty criticises Global Network Initiative for online freedom of speech. www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/oct/30/amnesty-global-network-initiative. Accessed 6 Nov 2015
Kinley D. et al. (2007). The Norms are dead! Long life the Norms! The politics behind the UN Human Rights Norms for corporations. In: D. McBarnet et al (Eds.), The new corporate accountability: Corporate social responsibility and the law (pp. 459–475). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Kopytoff VC (2011, March 6). Sites like Twitter absent from Free Speech Pact. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/technology/07rights.html?_r=1. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
Laidlaw, E. (2015). Regulating speech in cyberspace: gatekeepers, human rights and corporate responsibility. Cambridge/United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Maclay, C. (2010). Protecting privacy and expression online: Can the global network initiative embrace the character of the net? In R. Deibert et al. (Eds.), Access controlled: The shaping of power, rights, and rule in cyberspace (pp. 87–108). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McBarnet, D., et al. (Eds.). (2007). The new corporate accountability: Corporate social responsibility and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McBarnet, D. (2007). Corporate social responsibility beyond law, through law, for law: the new corporate accountability. In D. McBarnet et al. (Eds.), The new corporate accountability: Corporate social responsibility and the law (pp. 9–58). New York: Cambridge University Press.
McKinnon, (2015a). Corporate accountability index. https://rankingdigitalrights.org. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
McKinnon, (2015b). Corporate accountability index launch event, 3 Nov 2015.
Microsoft, Transparency Hub. https://www.microsoft.com/about/corporatecitizenship/en-us/transparencyhub/. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
Modern Slavery Act. 2015 c 30
Newland E et al Account Deactivation and Content Removal: Guiding Principles and Practices for Companies and Users. The Berkman Center for Internet & Society Research Publication Series No. 2011-2009.
Nieuwenkamp, R. (2015, April 30). Responsible business conduct in cyberspace. http://www.ihrb.org/commentary/responsible-business-conduct-in-cyberspace.html. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
Nolan, J. (2013). The corporate responsibility to respect human rights: Soft law or not law? In S. Deva & D. Bilchitz (Eds.), Human rights obligations of business: Beyond the corporate responsibility to respect (pp. 138–161). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nominet, Dispute Resolution Service Policy.
OECD Guidelines for Multinationals Enterprises.
Okoye, A. (2009). Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested concept: Is a definition necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 613–627.
Reed, C. (2012). Making laws for cyberspace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Report of the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of expression, Frank La Rue to the United Nations General Assembly. (2011). http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2016.
Resolution centre. http://resolutioncenter.ebay.com. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
Ruggie, J. (2011). Guiding principles on business and human rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, respect and remedy” framework. www.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/ruggie/ruggie-guiding-principles-21-mar-2011.pdf. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
Ruggie, J. (2008). Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights, Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
Ruggie, J. (2013). Just business: Multinational corporations and human rights. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Shift, Advising the Global Network Initiative on a Public Engagement Mechanism. http://shiftproject.org/project/advising-global-network-initiative-public-engagement-mechanism. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
Steel, E., Fowler, G. A. (2010, October 18). Facebook in privacy breach. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304772804575558484075236968. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
Technology Industry Dialogue.
The Electronic Industry Code of Conduct.
The Guardian. (2014, January 24). Two jailed for Twitter abuse of feminist campaigner. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/24/two-jailed-twitter-abuse-feminist-campaigner. Accessed 26 May 2016.
The Global Internet Freedom and the Rule of Law hearings led by Senator Richard. Durbin. http://durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=c3078a7d-bfd9-4186-ba86-2571e0e05ec8. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
The Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability of the International Finance Corporation.
United Nations draft Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporation and other business enterprises with regard to human rights. (2003), E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12
United Nations Global Compact.
Vick, D. (2005). Regulating hatred. In M. Klang & A. Murray (Eds.), Human rights in the digital age. London: Cavendish Publishing.
Vodafone. (2015). Law Enforcement Disclosure Report. http://www.vodafone.com/content/index/about/sustainability/law_enforcement.html#. Accessed 6 Nov 2015
Wang, T. (2013, August 3). Our Commitment. https://blog.twitter.com/en-gb/2013/our-commitment. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
Webb, K., & Morrison, A. (2004). The law and voluntary codes: Examining the “Tangled Web”. In K. Webb (Ed.), Voluntary codes: private governance, the public interest and innovation. Ottawa: Carleton Research Unit for Innovation, Science and Environment.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Laidlaw, E.B. (2017). Myth or Promise? The Corporate Social Responsibilities of Online Service Providers for Human Rights. In: Taddeo, M., Floridi, L. (eds) The Responsibilities of Online Service Providers. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 31. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47852-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47852-4_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47851-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47852-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)