19 March 2025, 4pm (UK time)
Tricia Olsen, Professor and the Stassen Chair of World Peace at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs and Department of Political Science, USA and Daniel Marín López of Los Andes University in Bogotá.
Title: “How does the use of legal sanction shape corporate behavior?”
Tricia and Daniel will be discussing their research on strategic litigation, or the use of legal sanctions to shape corporate behavior. They will share the varied goals of strategic litigation, which involve both victim-oriented goals and movement-oriented goals, the challenges therein, and the current state of play in this field.
You may like to read this article from justiceinfo.net by Tatiana Devia and Daniel Marin Lopez on addressing the corporate complicity of Chiquita in armed conflict: Insights from the Chiquita trial: 25 years of struggle.
Readings:
- Kölbel, J. F., Busch, T., & Jancso, L. M. (2017). How media coverage of corporate social irresponsibility increases financial risk. Strategic Management Journal, 38(11), 2266-2284.
- Haslem, B., Hutton, I., & Smith, A. H. (2017). How much do corporate defendants really lose? A new verdict on the reputation loss induced by corporate litigation. Financial Management, 46(2), 323-358.
You can watch the recording on YouTube.
30 April 2025, 4pm (UK time)
Robert Phillips, Professor of Sustainability and George R. Gardiner Professor in Business Ethics, York University’s Schulich School of Business, Canada.
Title: “Bringing together business and human rights with stakeholder theory”
Rob will first discuss the philosophical foundations of BHR and then engage in conversation with Harry Van Buren and Judith Schrempf-Stirling about their working paper that brings BHR together with stakeholder theory. The audience will then consider some key philosophical questions, such as is BHR liberal? If not, what are its foundations? Or does it need such foundations? How does the answer alter our expectations for the theory? If BHR does rest on liberalism, how broadly does it define positive duties? Or is it safer and more convincing to think of rights as negative injunctions against rights violations?
Reading
You can watch the recording on YouTube.