Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:51:08.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Domestic Adjudicative Institutions, Developing Countries and Sustainable Development: Linkages and Limitations

from Part I - Institutions, CSR Conceptualizations and Sustainable Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2019

By
Onyeka K. Osuji  and
Paul U. Abba
Edited by
Onyeka Osuji ,
Franklin N. Ngwu  and
Dima Jamali
Onyeka Osuji
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Franklin N. Ngwu
Affiliation:
Pan-Atlantic University, Nigeria
Dima Jamali
Affiliation:
American University of Beirut
Get access

Summary

The chapter draws insights from the institutional theoretic model to investigate the role of courts and other formal adjudicative institutions in promoting sustainable development. Its tripartite institutions framework emphasises the knowledge and communicative elements of sustainable development flowing from key social actors such as adjudicative institutions to other segments of society. Using environmental protection as a case study and making references to national laws and judicial decisions, the chapter demonstrates that adjudicative institutions can manifest a commitment to sustainable development, affirm applicable global standards influence other actors in, and segments of, society. It is argued that the regulatory role of adjudicative institutions includes constitutionalisation of sustainable development, empowerment of individuals and stakeholder groups and addressing vulnerability of victims while the normative role ensures the internalisation and transmission of sustainable development values. The cognitive role includes reshaping local practices by promoting effective glocalisation and appropriate corporate governance and social responsibility for sustainable development. While it shows adjudicative institutions as a key champion for sustainable development in the public and private spheres, the chapter proposes solutions to overcoming impediments to such as lack of explicit provisions, narrowly focusing on compensatory remedies, locus standi, forum non conveniens and choice of law.

Keywords

ConstitutionalisationCorporate GovernanceCorporate Social ResponsibilityCourtsDeveloping CountriesEnvironmentGlocalisationInstitutionsStakeholderSustainable Development
Type
Chapter
Information
Corporate Social Responsibility in Developing and Emerging Markets
Institutions, Actors and Sustainable Development
 , pp. 49 - 84
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acemoglu, R. and Robinson, J. (2008). The Role of Institutions in Growth and Development. Washington DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Adjami, M. (2002). African courts, international law, and comparative case law: Chimera or emerging human rights jurisprudence? Michigan Journal of International Law, 24(1), 103–68.Google Scholar
Aristova, E. (2018). Tort litigation against transnational corporations in the English courts: The challenge of jurisdiction. Utrecht Law Review, 14(2), 6–21.Google Scholar
Bähr, C. Brunner, U. and Casper, K. (2018). KlimaSeniorinnen: Lessons from the Swiss senior women’s case for future climate litigation. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 9(2), 194–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, J. (2007). International human rights plaintiffs and the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Cornell International Law Journal, 40(3), 749–80.Google Scholar
Bansal, P. (2002). The corporate challenges of sustainable development. Academy of Management Perspectives, 16(2),122–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogdan, M. (2009). The treatment of environmental damage in Regulation Rome II. In Ahern, J., and Binchy, W., eds., The Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations: A New International Litigation Regime. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 224–5.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, V. (2009). Defiance in Taxation and Governance: Resisting and Dismissing Authority in a Democracy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Brems, E. (2004). Reconciling universality and diversity in international human rights law. In Sajó, A., ed., Human Rights with Modesty: The Problem of Universalism. Leiden: Martinus Njihoff, pp. 213–30.Google Scholar
Brennan, Jr, William, J. (1988). Reason, passion, and the progress of the Law. Cardozo Law Review, 10, 3–23.Google Scholar
Burger, M. Gundlach, J. Kreilhuber, A. Ognibene, L. Kariukia, A. and Gachie, A. (2017). The Status of Climate Change Litigation: A Global Review. UNEP/Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law: Columbia University.Google Scholar
Cardozo, B. (1921). The Nature of the Judicial Process. Connecticut: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Chayes, A. and Chayes, A. (1995). The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cho, Y. (2015). Different shades of green consciousness: The interplay of sustainability labelling and environmental impact on product evaluations. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 73–82.Google Scholar
Collins, Lord and Harris, J., eds., (2012). Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws. 15th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (2011). A Renewed EU Strategy for Corporate Social Responsibility. EU Doc. COM (2011) 681 final, 3.Google Scholar
Coomans, F., ed., (2006). Justiciability of Socio-Economic Rights: Experiences from Domestic Systems. Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
Daily, C. Dalton, D. and Cannella Jr, A. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 371–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dam, L. and Scholtens, B. (2012). Does ownership type matter for corporate social responsibility? Corporate governance. An International Review, 20(3), 233–51.Google Scholar
Davis, K. and Trebilcock, M. (2008). The relationship between law and development: Optimists versus sceptics. American Journal of Comparative Law, 56(4), 895–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jonge, A. (2011). Transnational corporations and international law: Bringing TNCs out of the accountability vacuum. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 7(1), 66–89.Google Scholar
Desta, M. and Hirsch, M. (2012). African countries in the world trade system: International trade, domestic institutions and the role of international law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 61(1), 127–70.Google Scholar
Dickinson, A. (2008). The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-contractual Regulations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Douglass, F. (1955). ‘Southern barbarism’ 24th anniversary of emancipation. In Foner, P., ed., The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. (1978). Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ebeku, K. (2007). Constitutional right to a healthy environment and human rights approaches to environmental protection in Nigeria: Gbemre v. Shell revisited. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 16(3), 312–20.Google Scholar
Enneking, L. (2012). Foreign Direct Liability and Beyond – Exploring the Role of Tort Law in Promoting International Corporate Social Responsibility and Accountability. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Enneking, L. (2014). The future of foreign direct liability? Exploring the international relevance of the Dutch Shell Nigeria case. Utrecht Law Review, 10, 44–54.Google Scholar
Etherton, T. (2010). Liberty, the archetype and diversity: A philosophy of judging. Public Law, October, 727–46.Google Scholar
Etienne, J. (2013). Ambiguity in relational signals in regulator-regulatee relationships. Regulation & Governance, 7(1),30–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falletti, T. G. and Cunial, S. L. (2018). Participation in Social Policy: Public Health in Comparative Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, C. and Hess, D. (2011). Corporate monitorship and governance regulation. In theory, in practice, and in context. Law and Policy, 33(4), 509–41.Google Scholar
Fransen, L. (2013). The embeddedness of responsible business practice: Exploring the interaction between national-institutional environments and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 213–27.Google Scholar
Gabaldon, P. and Gröschl, S. (2015). A few good companies: Rethinking firms’ responsibilities toward common pool resources. Journal of Business Ethics, 132, 579–88.Google Scholar
Gautier, A. and Pache, A. (2015). Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics,126, 343–69.Google Scholar
Ghaleigh, N. (2010). ‘Six honest serving men’: Climate change litigation as legal mobilisation and the utility of typologies. Climate Law 31, 34–5.Google Scholar
Global Judges Symposium (2003). Johannesburg principles on the role of law and sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Law, 15(1), 107–10.Google Scholar
Goddard, A., Assad, M., Issa, S., Malagila, J. and Mkasiwa, T. (2016). The two publics and institutional theory: A study of public sector accounting in Tanzania. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 40, 8–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grušić, U. (2016). International environmental litigation in EU courts: A regulatory perspective. Yearbook of European Law, 35(1), 180–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guéniat, M., Harjono, M., Missbach, A. and Viredaz, G. (2016). Dirty Diesel. How Swiss Traders Flood Africa with Toxic Fuels. A Public Eye Investigation. Lausanne: Public Eye.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N. (2009). Environment law, regulation and governance: Shifting architectures. Journal of Environmental Law, 21(2), 179–212.Google Scholar
Hamilton, L. and Clarke, T. (1996). The stakeholder approach to the firm: A practical way forward or a rhetorical flourish? Career Development International, 1(2), 39–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, C., Milne, M. and van Gramberg, B. (2015). The uptake of sustainability reporting in Australia. Journal of Business Ethics, 129, 445–68.Google Scholar
Hirschl, R. (2004). The political origins of the new constitutionalism. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 11(1), 71–108.Google Scholar
Hoffman, A. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–71.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. and Vaughan, G. (2005). Social Psychology. 4th ed. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Ijewereme, O. (2015). Anatomy of corruption in the Nigerian public sector: Theoretical perspectives and some empirical explanations. Sage Open, 5(2), 1–16.Google Scholar
Jacobs, F. (2006). The role of the European Court of Justice in the protection of the environment. Journal of Environmental Law, 18(2), 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kameri-Mbote, P. (2009). Kenya. In Kotzé, L. and Paterson, A., eds., The Role of the Judiciary in Environmental Governance: Comparative Perspectives. London: Kluwer, pp. 451–67.Google Scholar
Kameri-Mbote, P. and Odote, C. (2009). Courts as champions of sustainable development: Lessons from East Africa. Sustainable Development Law and Policy, 10, 31–8, 83–4.Google Scholar
Kang, N. and Moon, J. (2012). Institutional complementarity between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: A comparative institutional analysis of three capitalisms. Socio-economic Review, 10(1), 85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, D. and Kraay, A. (2015). Worldwide governance indicators. Available at http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home accessed 11 July 2018.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. and Mastruzzi, M. (2009). Governance matters V111: Aggregate and individual governance indicators 1996–2008. Policy Research Working Paper 4978, Washington DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
KMPG (2011). The KMPG Survey of Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting. London: KPMG.Google Scholar
Kotzé, L. and Paterson, A., eds., (2009). The Role of the Judiciary in Environmental Governance: Comparative Perspectives. London: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Kysar, D. (2012). Global environmental constitutionalism: Getting there from here. Transnational Environmental Law, 1(1), 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leestma, D. (2017). Groups sue Norway over failure to protect environment for future generations. Available at www.ecowatch.com/norway-climate-lawsuit-2510288916.html accessed 10 July 2018.Google Scholar
Leventhal, H. (1974). Environmental decision-making and the role of the courts. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 122,509–55.Google Scholar
Li, J., Moy, J. Lam, K. and Chu, W. (2008). Institutional pillars and corruption at the societal level. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 327–39.Google Scholar
Lidskog, R. and Sundqvist, G. (2015). When does science matter? International relations meets science and technology studies. Global Environmental Politics, 15(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Liebenberg, S. (2001). The protection of economic social and cultural rights in domestic legal systems. In Eide, A., Krause, C. and Rosas, A., eds., Economic Social and Cultural Rights. 2nd ed. London: Kluwer, pp. 55–84.Google Scholar
Lozano, J., Albareda, L. and Ysa, T. (2008). Governments and Corporate Social Responsibility: Public Policies Beyond Regulation and Voluntary Compliance. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
May, J. R. (2009). Not at all: Environmental sustainability in the Supreme Court. Sustainable Development Law and Policy, 10, 20–29, 81–2.Google Scholar
McAuslan, P. (1991). The role of courts and other judicial type bodies in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Law, 3(2), 195–208.Google Scholar
Meeran, R. (2011). Tort litigation against multinational corporation for violation of human rights: An overview of the position outside the United States. City University of Hong Kong Law Review, 3(1) 1–41.Google Scholar
Merrills, J. (1996). Environmental protection and human rights: Conceptual aspects. In Boyle, A. and Anderson, M., eds., Human rights approaches to environmental protection. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 25–42.Google Scholar
Misangyi, V., Weaver, G. and Elms, H. (2008). Ending corruption: The interplay among institutional logics, resources, and institutional entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 750–70.Google Scholar
Mutua, M. (2004). The complexity of universalism in human rights. In Sajó, A., ed., Human Rights with Modesty: The Problem of Universalism. Leiden: Martinus Njihoff. 51–64.Google Scholar
North, D. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O’Leary, R. (1989). The Impact of Federal Court Decisions on the Policies and Administration of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Administrative Law Review, 41(4), 549–74.Google Scholar
Omoteso, K. and Yusuf, H. (2017). Accountability of transnational corporations in the developing world: The case for an enforceable international mechanism. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 13(1), 54–71.Google Scholar
Osemeke, L. and Adegbite, E. (2016). Regulatory multiplicity and conflict: Towards a combined code on corporate governance in Nigeria. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 431–51.Google Scholar
Osiatynski, W. (2004). On the universality of the universal declaration of human rights. In Sajó, A., ed., Human Rights with Modesty: The Problem of Universalism. Leiden: Martinus Njihoff. pp. 33–50.Google Scholar
Palmer, E. (2007). Judicial Review, Socio-Economic Rights and the Human Rights Act. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Pedersen, O. W. (2019). A study of administrative environmental decision-making before the courts. Journal of Environmental Law, 23 January 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqy026.Google Scholar
Persson, A., Rothstein, B., and Teorell, J. (2013). Why anticorruption reforms fail: Systemic corruption as a collective action problem. Governance, 26(3), 449–71.Google Scholar
Pillay, S. and Kluvers, R. (2014). An institutional theory perspective on corruption: The case of a developing democracy. Financial Accountability & Management, 30(1), 95–119.Google Scholar
Powell, W. and DiMaggio, P. (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, B. J. (2005). The role of the judiciary in promoting sustainable development: The experience of Asia and the Pacific. Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law, 9(2/3), 109–211.Google Scholar
Rajamani, L. (2003). From Stockholm to Johannesburg: The anatomy of dissonance in the international environmental dialogue. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 12(1),23–32.Google Scholar
Reid, Lord. (1972). The Judge as lawmaker. The Journal of the Society of Public Teachers of Law, 12(1), 22–9.Google Scholar
Robertson, D. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and different stages of economic development: Singapore, Turkey, and Ethiopia. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(4), 617–33.Google Scholar
Rothstein, B. (2011), Can markets be expected to prevent themselves from self-destruction? Regulation and Governance, 5, 387–404.Google Scholar
Ryngaert, C. (2013). Tort litigation in respect of overseas violations of environmental law committed by corporations: Lessons from the Akpan v Shell litigation in the Netherlands. McGill International Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy, 8(2), 245–60.Google Scholar
Sachs, J. (2012). From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. Lancet, 379, 2206–11.Google Scholar
Sadurski, W. (2004). Universalism, localism and paternalism in human rights discourse. In Sajó, A., ed., Human Rights with Modesty: The Problem of Universalism. Leiden: Martinus Njihoff. pp.141–60.Google Scholar
Sax, J. (1971). Defending the environment: A strategy for citizen action. New York: Knopft.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. (2009). Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, R. (1990). Human rights in an evolving culture. In An-Na’im, A., and Deng, F., eds., Human Rights in Africa: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, pp. 368–82.Google Scholar
Scott, W. (2001). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Scott, W. (2008). Approaching adulthood: The maturing of institutional theory. Theory and Society, 37(5), 427–42.Google Scholar
Solomon, J. (2007). Corporate Governance and Accountability. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Stacy, H. International Human Rights in a Fragmenting World. In Sajó, A., ed., (2004). Human Rights with Modesty: The Problem of Universalism. Leiden: Martinus Njihoff.Google Scholar
Taplin, I. (2014). Who is to blame? A re-examination of fast fashion after the 2013 factory disaster in Bangladesh. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 10(1/2), 72–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P. (1998). From environmental to ecological human right: A new dynamic in international law? Georgetown Environmental Law Review, 10, 309–11.Google Scholar
Uberti, L. (2016). Can institutional reforms reduce corruption? Economic theory and patron–client politics in developing countries. Development and Change, 47(2), 317–45.Google Scholar
United Nations (1973). UN Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, Sweden, 5–16 June 1972, Report of the UN Conference on the Human Environment, 2–7, UN Doc. A/Conf.48/14/Rev.1.Google Scholar
United Nations (1987). Report of World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future (Brundtland Report). Available at www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf (accessed 10 July 2018).Google Scholar
United Nations (1992). Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio De Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992). A/CONF.151/26.Google Scholar
United Nations (2002). Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. UN Doc A/Conf 199/20.Google Scholar
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2016). Diesel fuel sulphur levels: Global status June 2016. Available at www.unep.org/Transport/New/PCFV/pdf/Maps_Matrices/world/sulphur/MapWorldSulphur_June2016.pdf accessed 1 July 2018.Google Scholar
Viljoen, F. (2007). International Human Rights Law in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 33, pp. 540–42.Google Scholar
Wald, P. (1992). The role of the judiciary in environmental protection. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 19(3), 519–46.Google Scholar
Ward, H. (2003). Towards a new convention on corporate accountability? Some lessons from the Thor Chemicals and Cape PLC Cases. Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 12, 136–47.Google Scholar
Warren, L. (2003). Sustainable development and governance. Environmental Law Review, 5(2), 77–85.Google Scholar
Waterman, R. Jr (1994). The Frontiers of Excellence: Learning from Companies that Put People First. London, Brealey.Google Scholar
Weinrib, E. (2002). Corrective justice in a Nutshell. The University of Toronto Law Journal, 52(4), 349–56.Google Scholar
World Bank (2003). Global Corporate Governance Forum. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
World Bank (2004). ‘Regulation of associated gas flaring and venting: A global overview and lessons from international experience’. Report number 3. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Yoo, J. (1999). Globalism and the constitution: Treaties, non-self-execution, and the original understanding. Columbia Law Review, 1955–2090.Google Scholar
Zucker, L. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Journal of Sociology, 42, 726–43.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×