This article explores the language of corporate accounts of business and human rights. Using innovative methods drawn from computational corpus linguistics, the article explores discussions of business and human rights in a data set composed of 346 corporate social responsibility reports drawn from firms in extractive industries. The article concludes that human rights are ‘put to work’ in corporate accounts by reconfiguring their meaning to draw them into the ‘familiar frames’ of business accounting narratives.
ArnoldT (2017) A tidy data model for natural language processing using cleanNLP. The R Journal9(2): 248–267.
2.
ArnoldPHammondT (1994) The role of accounting in ideological conflict: Lessons from the South African divestment movement. Accounting, Organizations and Society19(2): 111–126.
3.
BaadeHW (1979) The legal effects of codes of conduct for multinational enterprises. German Yearbook of International Law22: 11–52.
4.
BaintonNABallardCGillespieK, et al. (2011) Stepping stones across the Lihir Islands: Developing cultural heritage management in the context of a gold-mining operation. International Journal of Cultural Property18(1): 81–110.
5.
BarnbrookGMasonOKrishnamurthR (2013) Collocation: Applications and Implications. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
6.
BebbingtonJLarrinagaCMonevaJM (2008) Corporate social reporting and reputation risk management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal21(3): 337–361.
7.
BenoitK (2018) Quanteda: Quantitative analysis of textual data. Available at: http://quanteda.io/(accessed 21 August 2018).
BerlinerDPrakashA (2015) “Bluewashing” the firm? Voluntary regulations, program design, and member compliance with the United Nations global compact. Policy Studies Journal43(1): 115–138.
10.
BernazN (2016) Business and Human Rights: History, Law and Policy - bridging the Accountability Gap. London, UK: Routledge.
11.
BG Group (2012) BG group sustainability report 2012. London: BG Group.
12.
BG Group (2014) Sustainability report 2014. London: BG Group/Royal Dutch Shell. Available at: https://go.shell.com/2MIstuD(accessed 21 August 2018).
13.
BiberDBiberPDConradS, et al. (1998) Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
BirdSKleinELoperE (2009) Natural Language Processing with Python: Analyzing Text with the Natural Language Toolkit. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
15.
BondiMScottM (eds) (2010) Keyness in Texts. Studies in Corpus Linguistics v. 41. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
16.
BonnitchaJMcCorquodaleR (2017) The Concept of ‘Due Diligence’ in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. European Journal of International Law28(3): 899–919.
17.
BoumaG (2009) Normalized (pointwise) mutual information in collocation extraction. Proceedings of the German Society for Computational Linguistics & Language Technology Biennial Conference. Potsdam, Germany: GSCL, 31–40.
Business and Human Rights Resource Centre and Institute for Human Rights and Business (2018) Corporate Human Rights Benchmark. Available at: https://www.corporatebenchmark.org/(accessed 21 August 2018).
20.
ČerničJL (2008) Corporate responsibility for human rights: A critical analysis of the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. Hanse Law Review4: 71.
21.
China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) (2008) 2008 Sustainability report. Beijing: CNOOC. Available at: http://www.cnooc.com.cn/col/col7161/index.html(accessed 21 August 2018).
22.
ConleyJMWilliamsCA (2011) Global banks as global sustainability regulators? The equator principles. Law & Policy33(4): 542–575.
23.
CzarniawskaBGagliardiP (eds) (2003) Narratives We Organize By. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
24.
Czarniawska JoergesBJoergesB (1988) How to control things with words: Organizational talk and control. Management Communication Quarterly2(2): 170–194.
25.
DevaS (2006) Global compact: A critique of the UN’s public-private partnership for promoting corporate citizenship. Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce1(1): 107–152.
26.
DevaSBilchitzD (eds) (2013) Human Rights Obligations of Business: Beyond Corporate Responsibility Respect?Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
DowlingJPfefferJ (1975) Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. The Pacific Sociological Review18(1): 122–136.
EdelmanLBSuchmanMC (1997) The legal environments of organizations. Annual Review of Sociology23: 479–515.
30.
EdelmanLBFullerSRMara DritaI (2001) Diversity rhetoric and the managerialization of law. American Journal of Sociology106(6): 1589–1641.
31.
EdelmanLBUggenCErlangerHS (1999) The endogeneity of legal regulation: Grievance procedures as rational myth. American Journal of Sociology105(2): 406–454.
32.
FirthJR (1957) A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930-1955. In: Studies in Linguistic Analysis 1952-1959. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
GilbertDU (2010) The United Nations global compact as a network of networks. In: RascheAKellG (eds), The United Nations Global Compact. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 340–354.
35.
GouldsonABebbingtonJ (2007) Corporations and the governance of environmental risk. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy25(1): 4–20.
36.
GunninghamNKaganRAThorntonD (2004) Social license and environmental protection: Why businesses go beyond compliance. Law & Social Inquiry29(2): 307–341.
37.
HamannHVogelF (2018) Evidence-based jurisprudence meets legal linguistics—unlikely blends made in Germany. Brigham-Young University Law Review2017(6): 1473–1501.
38.
HamiltonCAdolphsSNerlichB (2007) The meanings of ‘risk’: A view from corpus linguistics. Discourse & Society18(2): 163–181.
39.
HoeyM (2005) Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
40.
HonnibalMJohnsonM (2015) An improved non-monotonic transition system for dependency parsing. In: Proceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, Lisbon, Portugal, September 2015, pp. 1373–1378. Association for Computational Linguistics. Available at: http://aclweb.org/anthology/D15-1162(accessed 21 August 2018).
41.
HunstonS (2011) Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. London, UK: Routledge.
International Labour Organization (2017) Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social policy (MNE declaration), 5th ed. Geneva: ILO. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/empent/areas/mne-declaration/lang--en/index.htm(accessed 21 August 2018).
JägersN (2011) UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Making headway towards real corporate accountability?Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights2: 2011–2159.
46.
JaworskaS (2018) Change but no climate change: Discourses of climate change in corporate social responsibility reporting in the oil industry. International Journal of Business Communication55(2): 194–219.
47.
KaebC (2008) Emerging issues of human rights responsibility in the extractive and manufacturing industries: Patterns and liability risks. Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights6(2): 327–353.
48.
KauzlarichRD (1980–1981) The review of the 1976 OECD declaration on international investment and multinational enterprises symposium: Codes of conduct for transnational corporations. American University Law Review30: 1009–1030.
49.
KellG (2013) 12 years later reflections on the growth of the UN Global Compact. Business & Society52(1): 31–52.
50.
KinleyDNavidiJ (2013) The long arm of human rights risk: Supply chain management and legal responsibility. The Business and Human Rights Review3: 10–14.
51.
KryczkaKLambooyTBeckersS (2012) The importance of due diligence practices for the future of business operations in Fragile states. European Company Law9(2): 125–132.
52.
KuperA (2004) Harnessing corporate power: Lessons from the UN Global Compact. Development47(3): 9–19.
53.
LindsayRMcCorquodaleRBlecherL, et al. (2013) Human rights responsibilities in the oil and gas sector: Applying the UN guiding principles. The Journal of World Energy Law & Business6(1): 2–66.
54.
LischinskyA (2011) In times of crisis: A corpus approach to the construction of the global financial crisis in annual reports. Critical Discourse Studies8(3): 153–168.
55.
MahlbergM (2006) Lexical cohesion. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics11(3): 363–383.
56.
McCorquodaleRSmitLNeelySBrooksR (2017) Human Rights Due Diligence in Law and Practice: Good Practices and Challenges for Business Enterprises. Business and Human Rights Journal2(2): 195–224.
57.
Measuring Business and Human Rights Project (2014) List of tools and initiatives featuring business and human rights indicators. Report, 12 November. London: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. Available at: http://bit.ly/LSE_BHR(accessed 21 August 2018).
58.
MeyerJWRowanB (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology83(2): 340–363.
59.
MoonJVogelD (2008) Corporate social responsibility, government, and civil society. In: CraneAMcWilliamsAMattenD, et al. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 303–323.
60.
MuchlinskiP (2012) Implementing the new UN corporate human rights framework: Implications for corporate law, governance, and regulation. Business Ethics Quarterly22(1): 145–177.
61.
O’KellyC (2018) CollocateR: Functions Associated with a Corporate Governance Text Mining Project (version R package version 0.8). Available at: http://bit.ly/collocateR (accessed 18 December 2018).
62.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2011) OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. guidelines. Paris: OECD. Available at: http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/themes/human-rights.htm(accessed 21 August 2018).
63.
OshioneboE (2013) The OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises as mechanisms for sustainable development of natural resources: Real solutions or window dressing?Lewis & Clark Law Review17(2): 545–590.
64.
OwenJRKempD (2013) Social licence and mining: A critical perspective. Resources Policy38(1): 29–35.
PhillipsJCEgbertJ (2018) Advancing law and corpus linguistics: Importing principles and practices from survey and content-analysis methodologies to improve corpus design and analysis. Brigham Young University Law Review2017(6): 1589–1619.
67.
PittsC (2011) Voluntary principles on security and human rights. In: HaleTHeldD (eds), Handbook of Transnational Governance. Cambridge: Polity, pp. 357–363.
68.
PollachI (2012) Taming textual data: The contribution of corpus linguistics to computer-aided text analysis. Organizational Research Methods15(2): 263–287.
69.
PowerM (2007) Organized Uncertainty: Designing a World of Risk Management. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
70.
PowerM (2013) The apparatus of fraud risk. Accounting, Organizations and Society38(6–7): 525–543.
R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/(accessed 21 August 2018).
73.
RajakD (2011) In Good Company: An Anatomy of Corporate Social Responsibility. Stanford, USA: Stanford University Press.
74.
RascheAKellG (2010) The United Nations Global Compact: Achievements, Trends and Challenges. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
75.
RinkerTW (2017) Textstem: Tools for stemming and lemmatizing text. Available at: http://github.com/trinker/textstem(accessed 21 August 2018).
Royal Dutch Shell plc (1999) People, planet & profits: An act of commitment. London: Royal Dutch Shell. Available at: https://go.shell.com/2rGq6wg (accessed 19 December 2018).
78.
RuggieJG (2001) Global-governance.net: The global compact as learning network. Global Governance7: 371.
79.
RuggieJG (2010) Report of the special representative of the secretary-general on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises: ‘Business and human rights: Further steps towards the operationalization of the “protect, respect and remedy” framework’. A/HRC/14/27, progress report, 9 April. New York: United Nations. Available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/trans_corporations/docs/A-HRC-14-27.pdf(accessed 21 August 2018).
80.
RuggieJG (2013) Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
81.
RuggieJGShermanJF (2017) The concept of ‘due diligence’ in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: A reply to Jonathan Bonnitcha and Robert McCorquodale. European Journal of International Law28(3): 921–928.
82.
RutherfordBA (2005) Genre analysis of corporate annual report narratives: A corpus linguistics–based approach. The Journal of Business Communication (1973)42(4): 349–378.
83.
ScottJC (1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
84.
Secretariat for the VPSHR (2017) Voluntary principles on security and human rights. New York. Available at: http://www.voluntaryprinciples.org(accessed 21 August 2018).
85.
SelvanathanP (2013) Moving to metamorphosis. The Business and Human Rights Review2: 6–7.
86.
ShklarJN (1964) Legalism: Law, Morals, and Political Trials. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
SimonsPMacklinA (2013) The Governance Gap: Extractive Industries, Human Rights, and the Home State Advantage. London, UK: Routledge.
89.
SinclairJ (1991) Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
90.
SoederbergS (2007) Taming corporations or buttressing market-led development? A critical assessment of the global compact. Globalizations4(4): 500–513.
91.
SteurerR (2011) Soft instruments, few networks: How ‘new governance’ materializes in public policies on corporate social responsibility across Europe. Environmental Policy and Governance21(4): 270–290.
92.
SuchmanMCEdelmanLB (1996) Legal rational myths: The new institutionalism and the law and society tradition. Law & Social Inquiry21(4): 903–941.
93.
SuddabyRElsbachKDGreenwoodR, et al. (2010) Organizations and their institutional environments—bringing meaning, values, and culture back in. The Academy of Management Journal53(6): 1234–1240.
94.
TullyS (2001) The 2000 review of the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. International & Comparative Law Quarterly50(2): 394–404.
95.
UnermanJ (2008) Strategic Reputation Risk Management and Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal21(3): 362–364.
96.
United Nations (2000) The United Nations global compact. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/(accessed 21 August 2018).
van DoornE (2016) Environmental aspects of the mining code: Preserving humankind’s common heritage while opening Pardo’s box?Marine Policy70(C): 192–197.
WheelerS (2015) Global production, CSR and human rights: The courts of public opinion and the social licence to operate. The International Journal of Human Rights19(6): 757–778.
101.
WhelanN (2010) Building the United Nations global compact local network model: History and highlights. In: RascheAKellG (eds), The United Nations Global Compact. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 317–339.
102.
WhiteHV (1987) The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Johns Hopkins paperback. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
103.
WhittyN (2011) Human rights as risk: UK prisons and the management of risk and rights. Punishment & Society13(2): 123–148.
104.
WilsonG (2000) Business, state, and community: ‘Responsible risk takers’, new labour, and the governance of corporate business. Journal of Law and Society27(1): 151–177.
105.
WörsdörferM (2015) The Equator Principles and Human Rights Due Diligence - Towards a Positive and Leverage-Based Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility. Philosophy of Management14(3): 193–218.
