DOCSLIB.ORG

Corporate America, the Sullivan Principles, and the Anti-Apartheid Struggle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Corporate America, the Sullivan Principles, and the Anti-Apartheid Struggle Black Power in the Boardroom: Corporate America, the Sullivan Principles, and the Anti-Apartheid Struggle JESSICA ANN LEVY This article traces the history of General Motors’ first black director, Leon Sullivan, and his involvement with the Sullivan Principles, a corporate code of conduct for U.S. companies doing business in Apartheid South Africa. Building on and furthering the postwar civil rights and anti-colonial struggles, the international anti-apartheid movement brought together students, union workers, and religious leaders in an effort to draw attention to the horrors of Apartheid in South Africa. Whereas many left-leaning activists advocated sanctions and divestment, others, Sullivan among them, helped lead the way in drafting an alternative strategy for American business, one focused on corporate-sponsored black empowerment. Moving beyond both narrow criticisms of Sullivan as a “sellout” and corporate propaganda touting the benefits of the Sullivan Prin- ciples, this work draws on corporate and “movement” records to reveal the complex negotiations between white and black executives as they worked to situate themselves in relation to anti-racist movements in the Unites States and South Africa. In doing so, it furthermore reveals the links between modern corporate social responsibility and the fight for Black Power within the corporation. © The Author 2019. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Business History Conference. doi:10.1017/eso.2019.32 Published online August 2, 2019 JESSICA ANN LEVY is a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of History and the Corruption Laboratory for Ethics, Accountability, and the Rule of Law (CLEAR) at the University of Virginia. She received her Ph.D. in History from Johns Hopkins University. Contact information: Corcoran Department of History, University of Virginia, Nau Hall-South Hall, Charlottesville, VA 22904. E-mail: [email protected]. 170 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.202.226, on 01 Oct 2021 at 09:35:06, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eso.2019.32 Black Power in the Boardroom 171 Introduction Pandemonium. That was how the New York Times’ reporter described the 1971 General Motors’ shareholder meeting. “The first public disagreement within memory on the 23-member G.M. board,” he claimed.1 The focus of the controversy was a series of remarks made by Reverend Leon Howard Sullivan. A veteran of the civil rights movement, Sullivan had recently earned the distinction of becoming GM’s first black board member and the first black director of a major Fortune 500 company. Rather than sitting quietly and observing the proceedings, as some of his colleagues on the board had hoped he would, Sullivan used the opportunity of his first shareholder meeting to speak boldly on the issue of Apartheid. He joined a group of share- holder activists calling for GM to end its operations in South Africa in protest of Apartheid.2 “Apartheid … is the most ruthless form of deal- ing with human beings in the world today. And … General Motors, Chrysler, Ford and 300 other American companies underwrite apart- heid by being there,” stated Sullivan. “I hold that General Motors should get out of South Africa.”3 Joining GM’s board in January 1971, amid a wave of shareholder and labor action calling for an end to racism within some of the largest U.S. cor- porations, Sullivan’s tenure at GM was illustrative of a broader shift within the black freedom struggle, which increasingly included calls for Black Power in U.S. corporate and financial institutions alongside demands for greater access to local and national government.4 Addressing corporate 1. Jerry M. Flint, “A Black Director of G.M. Will Vote Against the Board: Black General Motors Director Plans to Vote Against Board,” New York Times, April 9, 1971, 45.; Sullivan further ruffled the feathers of GM executives by testifying before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Africa, where he called for “a total eco- nomic, political and social disassociation with South Africa.” “Dr. Leon Sullivan Calls for Boycott of S. Africa Before Sub-Committee,” Sun Reporter, May 29, 1971, 11. 2. The term “apartheid,” Afrikaans for “apartness” or “separateness,” first used in the late 1920s, has since been employed by scholars and activists to describe government-implemented racial discrimination in a variety of periods and locales. While most associated with South Africa during the years 1948 to 1991, apartheid has likewise been used to describe legal segregation and institutionalized racism in the United States, Israel, and other places. Bond, South Africa and Global Apart- heid; Grady-Willis, Challenging U.S. Apartheid; Massey and Denton, American Apartheid; Pillay, “Apartheid in the Holy Land”; Adebajo et al., From Global Apart- heid to Global Village; Davis, Apartheid Israel. 3. Sullivan, quoted in “Episcopal Resolution Backed By Dr. Leon Sullivan of GM,” Oakland Post, April 28, 1971, 13. 4. For more on this shift, see Levy, “Selling Atlanta”; Chatelain, “The Miracle of the Golden Arches”; Hill and Rabig, The Business of Black Power. The new focus on corporate America built on existing calls for greater access to local and national government within the Black Power movement. Countryman, “From Protest to Politics.” Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.202.226, on 01 Oct 2021 at 09:35:06, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eso.2019.32 172 LEVY executives at a press conference in May 1970, Congresswoman Shir- ley Chisholm (D-NY) stated that American companies like GM had failed to respond “to the needs of black Americans” for too long.5 Her comments were echoed by Congressman Louis Stokes (D-OH). The congressman called for more black managers and black directors to wield real “decision-making [power] in American corporations.”6 Subsequently, American corporations appointed black directors and managers in record numbers in response to pressure from sharehold- ers, consumers, and government officials.7 Whereas in 1969 there had been only one black American on the board of a Fortune 500 company, by mid-1971 there were at least a dozen. By the end of 1972, there were fifty-four black directors in Fortune 500 companies.8 Similar increases in the number of black men in other executive, administra- tive, and managerial positions occurred between 1970 and 1980.9 The appointment of black managers and directors was only the beginning. Working in collaboration with religious and other organi- zations outside the corporation, many of the first black directors and black executives struggled to exert Black Power within their respective companies through initiating various corporate social responsibility programs aimed at improving the lives of black and other marginalized people at home and abroad. Speaking at a press conference shortly after his appointment was announced, Sullivan told the media, “I know General Motors is going to use me as a symbol and sample of how lib- eral it has become, but I am going to use them … I’ll be one voice out 5. Shirley Chisholm, quoted in Barbara Gold, “New Protest: General Motors Undemocratic?” The Sun, May 17, 1970, D1. 6. Louis Stokes, quoted in Morton Mintz, “GM Responds to Charges of Job Discrimination,” Washington Post, May 2, 1970, A5. 7. While some historians have suggested these appointments came out of corporate benevolence, there is significant evidence to show that corporate exec- utives were under pressure from multiple directions to diversify company man- agement. See, e.g., Thompson, Whose Detroit?, 103–127; “General Motors Hit on 2 Job Bias Counts,” Afro-American, November 14, 1970, 6; Eileen Shanahan, “13 in House Back Drive to Put Public Members on G.M. Board,” New York Times, May 1, 1970, 13; “‘What’s Good for U.S.’ posed at GM annual meeting,” Christian Science Monitor, May 25, 1970, 14; Barbara Gold, “New Protest: General Motors Undemo- cratic?” The Sun, May 17, 1970, D1. 8. Zweigenhaft and Domhoff, Diversity in the Power Elite, 91–93, 99; Collins, Black Corporate Executives. 9. Farley and Allen, The Color Line and the Quality of Life in America; Collins, “Black Mobility in White Corporations.” The vast majority of black corporate executives appointed during the 1970s were men, testifying to the continued double burden faced by black women. The first black woman to join a board of a Fortune 500 company was Patricia Robert Harris, former U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg. Harris joined the boards of Scott Paper and IBM in 1971, and Chase Manhattan in 1972. Zweigenhaft and Dornhoff, Diversity in the Power Elite, 96. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.202.226, on 01 Oct 2021 at 09:35:06, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eso.2019.32 Black Power in the Boardroom 173 of 23 … but I’m going to do all I can to help my people—black people, brown people, underprivileged people.”10 Hence Sullivan’s outburst at the shareholder meeting calling for GM to leave South Africa. Sullivan’s choice of South Africa was far from arbitrary. Situated at the southern tip of the African continent and the intersections of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, the Republic of South Africa increasingly drew the attention of anti-racist and anti-imperial activists in the United States and other countries who worked to illuminate the connections between American corpora- tions doing business in South Africa and the country’s oppressive Apartheid system, which denied voting rights to approximately 60 to 90 percent of the population depending on the year.11 By the mid- 1970s, dozens of American corporations, including GM, faced calls from anti-apartheid activists to leave the country and stop doing busi- ness with South Africa.12 Even as he fought to pressure GM on South Africa, echoing other anti-apartheid activists, Sullivan’s position on the board ultimately shaped his approach to fighting Apartheid.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Regulating Corporations
    PROVISIONAL EDITION Regulating Corporations A Resource Guide Désirée Abrahams* Geneva • December 2004 * Désirée Abrahams prepared this report during 2003 and early 2004, when she was a Research Assistant at the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) in Geneva, Switzerland. The author would like to thank Peter Utting, Kate Ives and Anita Tombez for their research and editorial support. The report was prepared under the UNRISD project “Promoting Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility in Developing Countries: The Potential and Limits of Voluntary Initiatives”, which is partly funded by the MacArthur Foundation. This edition may be subject to minor modifications and copy-editing prior to formal publication. The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) is an autonomous agency engaging in multidisciplinary research on the social dimensions of contemporary problems affecting development. Its work is guided by the conviction that, for effective development policies to be formulated, an understanding of the social and political context is crucial. The Institute attempts to provide governments, development agencies, grassroots organizations and scholars with a better understanding of how development policies and processes of economic, social and environmental change affect different social groups. Working through an extensive network of national research centres, UNRISD aims to promote original research and strengthen research capacity in developing countries. Current research programmes include: Civil Society and Social Movements; Democracy, Governance and Human Rights; Identities, Conflict and Cohesion; Social Policy and Development; and Technology, Business and Society. A list of the Institute’s free and priced publications can be obtained by contacting: UNRISD Reference Centre Palais des Nations 1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland Tel +41 (0)22 917 3020 Fax +41 (0)22 917 0650 [email protected] www.unrisd.org Copyright © United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
    [Show full text]
  • Sullivan-Type Principles for U.S. Multinationals in Emerging
    "SULLIVAN-TYPE" PRINCIPLES FOR U.S. MULTINATIONALS IN EMERGING ECONOMIES RICHARD T. DE GEORGE* 1. INTRODUCTION The high rate of crime in Russia and the prominence of the Russian Mafia are well known and publicized in the West. President Yeltsin has called crime, which is choking the emerging market economy, Russia's biggest problem.' An article in U.S. News & World Report describes Russia as "a vast bazaar in which the easiest way to get rich is to steal."2 The government has shown itself ineffective in combating crime and in establishing a rule of law. Consequently, many ordinary Russians, who are experiencing a decline in their standard of living,3 are more ambivalent about the march towards capitalism than they were in 1991. Many Western businesses are understandably reluctant to enter an area in which corruption is rampant and the future uncertain. However, the reasons behind the present conditions are too often inadequately understood. As a result, the remedy and the appropriate role of Western companies in the developing market of countries of the former Soviet Union are not clearly * Richard T. De George is University Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, of Russian and East European Studies, and of Business Administration, and Director of the International Center for Ethics in Business at the University of Kansas. His books include The New Marxism; Soviet Ethics and Morality; Business Ethics; and Competing with Integrity in International Business. 1 He has frequently called fighting crime his top priority. See Jack F. Matlock, Russia: The Power of the Mob, NY REVIEW OF BOOKS, July 13, 1995, at 12, 13; see also Julie Corwin et al., The Looting of Russia, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Sullivan Principles: a Critical Look at the U.S
    Sullivan Principles: A Critical Look at the U.S. Corporate Role in South Africa http://www.aluka.org/action/showMetadata?doi=10.5555/AL.SFF.DOCUMENT.af000027 Use of the Aluka digital library is subject to Aluka’s Terms and Conditions, available at http://www.aluka.org/page/about/termsConditions.jsp. By using Aluka, you agree that you have read and will abide by the Terms and Conditions. Among other things, the Terms and Conditions provide that the content in the Aluka digital library is only for personal, non-commercial use by authorized users of Aluka in connection with research, scholarship, and education. The content in the Aluka digital library is subject to copyright, with the exception of certain governmental works and very old materials that may be in the public domain under applicable law. Permission must be sought from Aluka and/or the applicable copyright holder in connection with any duplication or distribution of these materials where required by applicable law. Aluka is a not-for-profit initiative dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of materials about and from the developing world. For more information about Aluka, please see http://www.aluka.org Sullivan Principles: A Critical Look at the U.S. Corporate Role in South Africa Alternative title Sullivan Principles: A Critical Look at the U.S. Corporate Role in South Africa Author/Creator Rothmyer, Karen; Lowenthal, TerriAnn Publisher Africa Fund Date 1979-08 Resource type Pamphlets Language English Subject Coverage (spatial) South Africa, United States Coverage (temporal) 1970 - 1979 Source Africa Action Archive Rights By kind permission of Africa Action, incorporating the American Committee on Africa, The Africa Fund, and the Africa Policy Information Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Sullivan Principles National Attention
    Sullivan Principles By Molly Roth The Global Sullivan Principles, launched in 1977 by Philadelphia civil rights leader Leon H. Sullivan (1922-2001), represent one of the twentieth century’s most powerful attempts to effect social justice through economic leverage. More a sustained movement than a static document, the principles sought to bring the power of American investment in South Africa to bear on the cruel injustice of the apartheid state by establishing baseline commitments to fairness and empowerment as conditions for operating in the country. Sullivan, a native of West Virginia coal-mining country, came to Philadelphia in 1950 to pastor Zion Baptist Church on North Broad Street by way of a stop in Harlem, where he served as assistant minister to Adam Clayton Powell Jr. (1908-72) at the Abyssinian Baptist Church. Sullivan believed that Christian ministry needed to be geared to action and described himself as preaching a “pragmatic gospel.” Sullivan had honed his economic activism through what he called the “selective patronage” campaign, begun in 1958. Dissatisfied with the economic opportunities open to minorities and women, he helped to organize a coalition of 400 black ministers across Philadelphia to address discrimination in employment. If companies declined appeals from the coalition to hire blacks into professional and managerial positions, the ministers would urge their congregants to withhold their patronage. “Don’t buy where you can’t work,” they advised. This flexing of consumer muscle by Philadelphia’s black population yielded impressive results in terms of access to employment and confirmed the tactical power of coordinated economic resistance. National Attention The campaign’s success also won Sullivan national attention.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sullivan Principles: Decoding Corporate Camouflage
    The Sullivan Principles: Decoding Corporate Camouflage http://www.aluka.org/action/showMetadata?doi=10.5555/AL.SFF.DOCUMENT.nuun1980_06 Use of the Aluka digital library is subject to Aluka’s Terms and Conditions, available at http://www.aluka.org/page/about/termsConditions.jsp. By using Aluka, you agree that you have read and will abide by the Terms and Conditions. Among other things, the Terms and Conditions provide that the content in the Aluka digital library is only for personal, non-commercial use by authorized users of Aluka in connection with research, scholarship, and education. The content in the Aluka digital library is subject to copyright, with the exception of certain governmental works and very old materials that may be in the public domain under applicable law. Permission must be sought from Aluka and/or the applicable copyright holder in connection with any duplication or distribution of these materials where required by applicable law. Aluka is a not-for-profit initiative dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of materials about and from the developing world. For more information about Aluka, please see http://www.aluka.org The Sullivan Principles: Decoding Corporate Camouflage Alternative title Notes and Documents - United Nations Centre Against ApartheidNo. 4/80 Author/Creator United Nations Centre against Apartheid; Schmidt, Elizabeth Publisher United Nations, New York Date 1980-03-00 Resource type Reports Language English Subject Coverage (spatial) South Africa, United States Coverage (temporal) 1980 Source Northwestern University Libraries Description INTRODUCTION. The economic roots of apartheid. American business in South Africa - agent or obstacle to change? Intensification of Government repression.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Trade and Corporate Social Responsibility: Ethical Dilemmas in Global Economic Development
    California State University, Monterey Bay Digital Commons @ CSUMB Capstone Projects and Master's Theses Capstone Projects and Master's Theses 12-2018 Free Trade and Corporate Social Responsibility: Ethical Dilemmas in Global Economic Development Sarah Papion California State University, Monterey Bay Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/caps_thes_all Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics Commons, Economic Theory Commons, Growth and Development Commons, Income Distribution Commons, International Economics Commons, Labor Economics Commons, Macroeconomics Commons, Other Economics Commons, and the Political Economy Commons Recommended Citation Papion, Sarah, "Free Trade and Corporate Social Responsibility: Ethical Dilemmas in Global Economic Development" (2018). Capstone Projects and Master's Theses. 423. https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/caps_thes_all/423 This Capstone Project (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Capstone Projects and Master's Theses at Digital Commons @ CSUMB. It has been accepted for inclusion in Capstone Projects and Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ CSUMB. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Free Trade and Corporate Social Responsibility: Ethical Dilemmas in Global Economic Development Sarah Papion GS401- Senior Capstone Dr. Ajit Abraham December 20, 2018 Papion 1 Introduction The notion that free trade can promote economic growth in developing regions of the world seems like a plausible and practical solution to global poverty. Through the lens of the free-trade-optimist, it is black and white: corporations bring jobs, and jobs equal a happy and healthy economy. A major oversight in this neoliberal Utopian ideology is that corporations are not in the business of building communities, nor do they have an interest in keeping their operations stationary enough to allow economic growth to occur over a span of years.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring Multinationals: Lessons from the Anti-Apartheid Era
    10.1177/0032329203254861POLITICSGAYARTICLE W. SEIDMAN & SOCIETY Monitoring Multinationals: Lessons from the Anti-Apartheid Era GAY W. SEIDMAN This article examines the construction and implementation of the Sullivan Princi- ples, a two-decade effort to use corporate codes of conduct to improve the behavior of multinational corporations in South Africa under apartheid. Without organized social movement pressure, corporations would not have agreed to adopt the code, and corporate compliance required sustained pressure from the anti-apartheid movement. The system’s independent monitoring process was problematic, and managers’definitions of “good corporate citizenship” were more guided by moni- tors’emphases than by substantive concerns. Based on the historic case, the article raises questions about the voluntaristic, stateless character of transnational corpo- rate codes of conduct and questions whether such codes offer a viable strategy for improving working conditions. Keywords: labor; transnational activism; Sullivan Principles; South Africa; anti- apartheid movement Over the past decade, discussions of international development have come to take for granted the idea that international trade will serve as the motor of eco- nomic growth: academic economists and policy makers alike, backed by the insti- tutional power of international financial institutions, have reached an apparently seamless consensus. At the same time, of course, new technologies and new pro- duction strategies have spread industrial production across the globe, often coor- dinated by large multinational corporations. Combined, these two trends—the For comments on earlier drafts of this article, I am especially grateful to Jane Collins, Steve Frenkel, Gary Gereffi, Allen Hunter, Elizabeth Kier, and Cesar Rodrigues; and I gratefully acknowl- edge funding from the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s Graduate School.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Conditions and Worker Rights in China: Recent Developments
    WORKING CONDITIONS AND WORKER RIGHTS IN CHINA: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS HEARING BEFORE THE CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JULY 31, 2012 Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.cecc.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 76–387 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS House Senate CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, SHERROD BROWN, Ohio, Cochairman Chairman MAX BAUCUS, Montana FRANK WOLF, Virginia CARL LEVIN, Michigan DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California EDWARD R. ROYCE, California JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon TIM WALZ, Minnesota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JAMES RISCH, Idaho MICHAEL HONDA, California EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS SETH D. HARRIS, Department of Labor MARIA OTERO, Department of State FRANCISCO J. SA´ NCHEZ, Department of Commerce KURT M. CAMPBELL, Department of State NISHA DESAI BISWAL, U.S. Agency for International Development PAUL B. PROTIC, Staff Director LAWRENCE T. LIU, Deputy Staff Director (II) CO N T E N T S STATEMENTS Page Opening statement of Hon. Christopher Smith, a U.S. Representative from New Jersey; Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China ....... 1 Brown, Hon. Sherrod, a U.S. Senator from Ohio; Cochairman, Congressional- Executive Commission on China ........................................................................ 3 Kernaghan, Charles, Executive Director, Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights ...................................................................................................... 6 Li, Qiang, Executive Director and Founder, China Labor Watch ......................
    [Show full text]
  • The OECD Guidelines and Other Corporate Responsibility Instruments: a Comparison”, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2001/05, OECD Publishing
    Please cite this paper as: Gordon, K. (2001), “The OECD Guidelines and Other Corporate Responsibility Instruments: A Comparison”, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2001/05, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/302255465771 OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2001/05 The OECD Guidelines and Other Corporate Responsibility Instruments A COMPARISON Kathryn Gordon DIRECTORATE FOR FINANCIAL, FISCAL AND ENTERPRISE AFFAIRS WORKING PAPERS ON INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT Number 2001/5 The OECD Guidelines and Other Corporate Responsibility Instruments: A Comparison By Kathryn Gordon December 2001 Kathryn Gordon is a Senior Economist at the Capital Movements, International Investment and Services Division of the OECD. Business for Social Responsibility’s contribution to this paper is gratefully acknowledged. This paper forms part of an OECD publication entitled OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: Annual Report 2001 which was published in December 2001. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2001 THE OECD GUIDELINES AND OTHER CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY INSTRUMENTS: A COMPARISON Introduction The OECD Guidelines are recommendations by governments to multinational enterprises (MNEs) operating in or from the 33 countries that adhere to the Guidelines. The Guidelines help ensure that MNEs act in harmony with the policies of countries in which they operate and with societal expectations. They are the only comprehensive, multilaterally endorsed code of conduct for MNEs. They establish non-binding principles and standards covering a broad range of issues in business ethics. The basic premise of the Guidelines is that internationally agreed principles can help to prevent misunderstandings and build an atmosphere of confidence and predictability among business, labour, governments and society as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • The Controversy Over US Companies in South Africa
    Two Decades of Debate: the controversy over U.S. companies in South Africa http://www.aluka.org/action/showMetadata?doi=10.5555/AL.SFF.DOCUMENT.bmdv2 Use of the Aluka digital library is subject to Aluka’s Terms and Conditions, available at http://www.aluka.org/page/about/termsConditions.jsp. By using Aluka, you agree that you have read and will abide by the Terms and Conditions. Among other things, the Terms and Conditions provide that the content in the Aluka digital library is only for personal, non-commercial use by authorized users of Aluka in connection with research, scholarship, and education. The content in the Aluka digital library is subject to copyright, with the exception of certain governmental works and very old materials that may be in the public domain under applicable law. Permission must be sought from Aluka and/or the applicable copyright holder in connection with any duplication or distribution of these materials where required by applicable law. Aluka is a not-for-profit initiative dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of materials about and from the developing world. For more information about Aluka, please see http://www.aluka.org Two Decades of Debate: the controversy over U.S. companies in South Africa Author/Creator Hauck, David; Voorhes, Meg; Goldberg, Glenn Publisher Investor Responsibility Research Center, Inc Date 1983-00-00 Resource type Books Language English Subject Coverage (spatial) United States, South Africa Coverage (temporal) 1960-1982 Rights By kind permission of the Investor Responsibility Research Center, and with thanks to Glenn S. Goldberg. Description This review of the debate on U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Social Responsibility: the Sullivan Principles and South Africa
    Visions in Leisure and Business Volume 12 Number 4 Article 2 1994 Corporate Social Responsibility: The Sullivan Principles and South Africa Kenneth R. Gray Jackson State University Robert E. Karp Jackson State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/visions Recommended Citation Gray, Kenneth R. and Karp, Robert E. (1994) "Corporate Social Responsibility: The Sullivan Principles and South Africa," Visions in Leisure and Business: Vol. 12 : No. 4 , Article 2. Available at: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/visions/vol12/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ScholarWorks@BGSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Visions in Leisure and Business by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@BGSU. CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: THE SULLIVAN PRINCIPLESAND SOUTH AFRICA BY DR. KENNETH R. GRAY, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND DR. ROBERT E. KARP, PROFESsoa DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY 600 NORTH POINTE PARKWAY JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI39211 ABSTRACT Friedman and others who see business as having· a very central but . limited role in The Sullivan Principles (first pronounced in society contend that the business of business 1977) were developed as a code of conduct is business--not social issues or politics. to be followed by companies operating in There are those who view business more South Africa in an effort to confront the broadly (20, 19, 6, 24), and take the racial problems stemming from the racial viewpoint that business is both an economic segregation policies of the South African and a social institution. Business and other Government known as apartheid (2).
    [Show full text]
  • Responsible Engagement in an Era of Economic Integration
    Forcese: Globalizing Decency: Responsible Engagement in an Era of Economic Integration Article Globalizing Decency: Responsible Engagement in an Era of Economic Integration Craig Forceset The prevailing view in the foreign policies of many Western countries holds that "constructive" economic engagement with repressive regimes will induce human rights sensitive development. A very vigorous dissenting position, held by many opponents of "globalization," is that economic engagement and liberalizationfuel many of the very human rights abuses they are supposed to cure. The empirical evidence tends to support a nuanced approach to constructive engagement, one that might be termed "responsible engagement." Under a responsible engagement model, there remains an important role for economic sanctions, both as a means of affecting the behavior of nation-states and to stave off the possibility that citizens of one country are contributing to the persistence of the targeted repressive regime. Responsible engagement obliges recourse to "smart sanctions." Yet, the legal apparatus governing economic integration is, on the whole, built without an eye to a "smart sanctions" responsible engagement policy. This Article explores these assertions and concludes that a full-fledged strategy of responsible engagement obliges reconsideration and clarification of several facets of the World Trade Organization. t BA, McGill; MA, Carleton; LL.B., Ottawa; LL.M., Yale; Member of the Bars of New York, Ontario and the District of Columbia. Associate, Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, LLP, Washington, DC. The views reflected here are those of the author and not necessarily any of the organizations with which he is affiliated. Published by Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, 2002 1 Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, Vol.
    [Show full text]