Recent legal developments in the field of mandatory human rights due diligence (HRDD) put multinational enterprises (MNEs) under pressure to ensure respect for human rights not only within their own operations in home and host countries but also in facilities of their suppliers. As previous research in the field of business and human rights (BHR) has overlooked the critical role of subsidiaries in this context, the research objective of this proposal is to investigate, first, how MNEs transfer and adapt HRDD practices to operations of their subsidiaries in emerging economies, and second, how subsidiaries can play a critical role in ensuring respect for human rights with local suppliers in host countries. Findings will be based on empirical data from a case study with a large automotive company and its subsidiaries. The contribution could be twofold. First, this study will contribute to the advancement of international business (IB) research by focusing on practice transfer between headquarters and emerging market subsidiaries. Second, the findings contribute to BHR literature by providing a better understanding regarding the adaptation and local development of HRDD practices and the role of subsidiaries in implementing HRDD along global supply chains.

Following Russia’s attack on Ukraine in 2022, many voices in the Western media, civil society, and governments demanded that Western companies sever ties with Russia. Continuing business was framed as supporting an unjust war, and companies were threatened by boycotts and sanctions. This Western perspective has given little attention to the views of the Russian public, which is problematic because companies that became illegitimate in the eyes of their host state also faced serious consequences, such as nationalization. Thus, businesses should also consider the views of their employees, customers, partners, and the government in Russia, regardless of whether the companies stay or exit. The puzzle is how exactly companies and their actions are constructed as (il)legitimate in Russia compared to the West.

Legitimacy scholarship illuminates many of the mechanisms at work here. Legitimacy, as construed in the dominant model, comes down to individuals evaluating something to be appropriate or not. A jolt such as the attack on Ukraine prompts people to re-evaluate their legitimacy judgments. But people do not live in a vacuum and are affected by and sometimes take part in a discourse that constructs legitimacy. Studies on discursive legitimacy identified the institutions central to such a discourse: news media, government, judicial system, and – more recently – social media. This multi-level model achieved to connect micro-level individual judgments with institutions affecting the macro-level discourse. However, most legitimacy scholarship implicitly assumes this model to apply universally and equally across different institutional contexts. This assumption is problematic because the public debates that construct a social evaluation in Western democracies likely play out differently compared to those in non-Western autocratic countries such as Russia, where freedom of the press, choice of social media platforms, and the extent of the rule of law differ. Thus, legitimacy scholarship cannot fully explain the differences between discursive legitimacy mechanics in Russia and the West.

In our study, we explore how the public debates on foreign businesses in Russia differ between Russia and Switzerland. We aim to show how the different institutional contexts affect discursive legitimation. We conduct an inductive, longitudinal, mixed-method study using a broad theoretical sample of data: articles from leading newspapers, press releases, and social media postings by affected companies and both governments, blog posts, and video blogs from independent experts. We analyze this data using the Gioia method to extract themes of discursive legitimation. Additionally, we will perform latent sentiment analysis on social media posts and comments by individuals to track how individual legitimacy evaluations change. We then use temporal bracketing to relate the Gioia themes to the changes in individual evaluations to establish the different mechanisms of discursive legitimation over time. We gather data made public between 1.1.2013 (before the Euromaidan) and 1.1.2025. Currently, we are in contact with social media sites to secure data access (LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, VK, Odnoklassniki).

Switzerland represents the Western perspective well. First, its neutrality-based foreign policy and direct democracy led to heated national debates. Second, the banking and commodity sectors have intimate ties with the Russian economy. Third, Switzerland is home to large multinationals that produce essential goods that are often exempt from sanctions (e.g. Nestlé, Roche).

Preliminary findings indicate, first, that the contents of the national debates vary substantially, suggesting that foreign companies have to appease a diverse set of host- and home-country legitimacy demands. Second, the importance and the role of the institutions differ massively. For example, Kremlin censorship shifts the legitimating role of the media by aligning major news outlets and pushing dissenting opinions into other forums (e.g. social media, YouTube, comment sections).

We aim to contribute to legitimacy scholarship by, first, showing how the institutional context affects discursive legitimacy formation. Second, we add to recent studies that develop the role of social media in legitimacy formation while extending this role to other alternative arenas like YouTube blogs and comment sections in online forums. Furthermore, we contribute to Business and Peace literature by exploring how companies are constructed as responsible for contributing to peace and war efforts.

With the adoption of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in 2011 (Rasche and Waddock, 2021; Ruggie, 2020) and the introduction of corporate human rights regulation in many countries (Deva, 2023; Krajewski, Tonstad, and Wohltmann, 2021; Macchi and Bright, 2020), companies have started implementing policies and tools to assess and monitor their human rights impact (McCorquodale, Smit, Neely and Brooks, 2017; Smit Holly, McCorquodale and Neely, 2021). Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) has become the key mechanism for business to implement their human rights obligations (Deva, Ramasastry and Wettstein 2023; Leite, 2023; McCorquodale and Nolan, 2021). HRDD is a managerial process through which business assess their actual and potential human rights impact, act based on that assessment, monitor their responses, and communicate about their progress towards respecting human rights within their operations (Bueno and Bright, 2020). In short, its overarching goal is to empower business to positively affect the human rights of individuals affected by their operations.

The purpose of the paper is to examine the evolution of corporate HRDD practice. In so doing, we conduct a content analysis of corporate reports between 2012 and 2023 and focus on how corporations report on their activities in managing human rights within their operations. As a first step, we focus on companies from the extractive, cocoa, and coffee sectors (but might consider adding more sectors, if time allows). The extractive industry has been one of the very first industries which has been criticized for its violations of human rights (e.g., see Shell in Nigeria during the 1990s). The cocoa and coffee sectors have also a long trajectory of human rights challenges. The guiding research questions of the paper are: (1) How has corporate HRDD practice evolved since its introduction as a voluntary standard? (2) How has HRDD practice changed after HRDD has become mandatory? (3) Does the evolvement and practice of corporate HRDD differ across sectors?

Examining corporate reports as an empirical dimension to HRDD implementation allows us to discern how companies perceive and address their human rights responsibilities. We intend to identify emerging trends and patterns to gain insights into corporate HRDD practice, and to contextualize these findings within the transition of HRDD from voluntary to mandatory status and analyze the implications of mandatory HRDD on corporate HRDD practices. It is also planned to potentially conduct some interviews at some point to assess the sense that is being made of certain trends and patterns.

The main contribution of the paper lies in taking stock of how HRDD has been practiced over time, understanding the factors that might have contributed to that evolvement, such as making HRDD mandatory, and what the current level of corporate HRDD practice is. As such, the paper contributes to the ongoing discussion on the nature and extent of corporate responsibility to society.

Corporate purpose in management literature is receiving increasing attention (Besharov & Mitzinneck, 2023; Busco et al., 2024; Rey et al., 2019; Suddaby et al., 2023). Research has explored corporate purpose in relation to financial performance (Gartenberg et al., 2019), innovation (Henderson, 2020), stakeholder theory (McGahan, 2023), corporate social responsibility (Fontana et al., 2023), environmental, social, and governance metrics (Ruggie, 2020), and Covid-19 early response (Arias et al., 2024). Additionally, corporate purpose has been examined from a theoretical standpoint, both as a morally neutral concept (Morrison & Mota, 2021) and as a component of a new form of capitalism (Battilana et al., 2020). Several reviews have also considered corporate purpose, analyzing it in terms of perceived purpose (Jasinenko & Steuber, 2022) and as a multi-dimensional construct, encompassing perspectives such as "purpose of" and "purpose to." (Chua et al., 2024). From a practical perspective, even business associations and single corporations declared publicly to adhere to a new understanding of corporate purpose. In particular, the 2019 Business Roundtable statement marked a significant shift from a 40-year tradition of prioritizing shareholder supremacy, to one that included broader stakeholder interests (Business Roundtable, 2019).

Despite the recent surge in attention to corporate purpose, research on its potential risks and pitfalls remains limited. Theoretical efforts have highlighted its connection to symbolic management (Westphal, 2023), emphasizing the dangers of failing to make genuine progress on the issue (Kaplan, 2023). Some scholars have also called for an analysis of corporate purpose in terms of its authenticity, rather than merely its legitimacy (Suddaby et al., 2023). This line of inquiry is not entirely new to the business and society field, where related concepts such as "walking the talk" in corporate social responsibility (Schoeneborn et al., 2020) and accusations of hypocrisy (Hafenbrädl & Waeger, 2021) have been explored. However, empirical research specifically addressing the symbolic risks of corporate purpose—as for example using purpose declaration as a façade, exploiting trends of inauthenticity or failing to "walk the talk"—remains underdeveloped.

In this study, we adopt a qualitative research approach to explore the risk of decoupling a corporate purpose from corporate practices. The research focuses on a single case study of Boeing. This purposive case selection relies on the fact that Boeing’s CEO at the time, Dennis Muilenburg, was one of the signatories of the Business Roundtable’s 2019 corporate purpose statement. However, the recent misconduct by Boeing has gained global notoriety, with events such as the crashes of two 737 Max airplanes and a cabin blowout incident highlighting the culmination of several decades of public scandals, questioning the relationship between purpose declaration and practices. This creates a suitable case study in which a formal declaration of corporate purpose was followed by a series of actions that raise doubts about the authenticity of such commitments. Consequently, the analysis allows us to answer the following research questions: “How and why did the corporate purpose declaration and practices of Boeing become inconsistent?”

Our analysis will be conducted using an archival methodology, following the approach proposed by Grodal et al. (2021) and Hsu & Grodal (2021). Data will be sourced from the U.S. Department of Justice, the book “Flying Blind” (Robison, 2021), the Downfall Netflix documentary, Boeing's history as documented in its annual and social responsibility reports available on its website, as well as various news articles found online.

References

Arias, D., Barriola, X., & Loza Adaui, C. R. (2024). Corporate purpose and early disaster response: Providing evidence of dynamic materiality? Business Strategy and the Environment, May 2023, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3707

Battilana, julie, Obloj, T., Pache, A.-C., & Sengul, M. (2020). Beyond Shareholder Value Maximization: Accounting for Financial/Social Tradeoffs in Dual-Purpose Companies. Academy of Management Review, amr.2019.0386. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0386

Besharov, M., & Mitzinneck, B. (2023). The Multiple Facets of Corporate Purpose : An Analytical Typology The Multiple Facets of Corporate Purpose : May. https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0186

Busco, C., Giovannoni, E., Riccaboni, A., & Frigo, M. L. (2024). The micro-foundations of corporate purpose: Performance management in dynamic environments. Management Accounting Research, 216, 100890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2024.100890

Chua, N., Miska, C., Mair, J., & Stahl, G. K. (2024). Purpose in Management Research: Navigating a Complex and Fragmented Area of Study. Academy of Management Annals, 00(00), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2022.0186

Fontana, E., Frandsen, S., & Morsing, M. (2023). Saving the World ? How CSR Practitioners Live Their Calling by Constructing Different Types of Purpose in Three Occupational Stages. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05343-x

Gartenberg, C., Prat, A., & Serafeim, G. (2019). Corporate purpose and financial performance. Organization Science, 30(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1230

Grodal, S., Anteby, M., & Holm, A. L. (2021). Achieving Rigor in Qualitative Analysis: The Role of Active Categorization in Theory Building. Academy of Management Review, 46(3), 591–612. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0482

Hafenbrädl, S., & Waeger, D. (2021). The business case for CSR: A trump card against hypocrisy? Journal of Business Research, 129(August), 838–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.043

Henderson, R. (2020). Innovation in the 21st Century: Architectural Change, Purpose, and the Challenges of Our Time. Management Science, November. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3746

Hsu, G., & Grodal, S. (2021). The Double-edged Sword of Oppositional Category Positioning: A Study of the U.S. E-cigarette Category, 2007–2017. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(1), 86–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220914855

Jasinenko, A., & Steuber, J. (2022). Perceived Organizational Purpose: Systematic Literature Review, Construct Definition, Measurement and Potential Employee Outcomes. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12852

Kaplan, S. (2023). The Promises and Perils of Corporate Purpose. Strategy Science, June, 0–14. https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0187

McGahan, A. M. (2023). The New Stakeholder Theory on Organizational Purpose. Strategy Science, May. https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0184

Morrison, A. D., & Mota, R. (2021). A Theory of Organizational Purpose. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0307

Rey, C., Bastons, M., & Sotok, P. (2019). Purpose-driven Organizations (C. Rey, M. Bastons, & P. Sotok, Eds.). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17674-7

Ruggie, J. G. (2020). Corporate purpose in play. Sustainable Investing Sustainable Investing A Path to a New Horizon, 173–189. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429351044-9

Schoeneborn, D., Morsing, M., & Crane, A. (2020). Formative Perspectives on the Relation Between CSR Communication and CSR Practices: Pathways for Walking, Talking, and T(w)alking. Business and Society, 59(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650319845091

Suddaby, R., Manelli, L., & Fan, Z. (2023). Corporate Purpose: A Social Judgement Perspective. May. https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0185

Westphal, J. D. (2023). Systemic Symbolic Management, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Purpose: A Cautionary Tale. Strategy Science, 8(2), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0188

As the unsustainable production and consumption of consumer electronics continue to accelerate (Tansel, 2017), repairing broken products is essential to managing material usage more effectively. Yet, repair is perceived by many as too expensive, inconvenient, not as profitable, not as reliable as buying/ producing new, or not even considered an option when a product reaches obsolescence (European Commission, 2014). The electronics repair system involves many decision-makers who are influenced by a range of enabling and inhibiting financial, technological, and social factors. The dimensions affecting repair often impact stakeholders throughout the value chain, but the significance of these dimensions varies depending on the role a stakeholder plays within the value chain (Bovea et al., 2017). Additionally, most existing literature focuses on stakeholders in isolation, meaning the interplay between factors is not analysed, and the lack of alignment required to establish successful systems remains.

To consider the needs of various stakeholders from throughout the value chain so that electronics repair systems can be designed to bring benefits throughout the value chain, this study employs stakeholder theory (Freeman & McVea, 2005). First, the influence of barriers and enablers from the perspectives of the various actors within the repair system will be identified. Secondly, the aim is to understand which barriers and enablers are characteristic of electronics repair in general, and which factors are specific to a particular context, e.g. self-repair and professional repair or small electronics and household appliances. An understanding of the major influences of the system should allow value creation for key actors across the repair system.

Considering the multidimensional factors influencing repair behaviours of stakeholder groups identified in existing research, this study will conduct a scoping literature review to understand the dimensions investigated by existing literature. Factors influencing behaviour will be analysed with respect to existing theories, such as the theory of interpersonal behaviour (Triandis, 1977) and environmental behaviour models, such as Stern’s ABC model (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Stern, 2000); as these theories share the idea that behaviour is a combined result of intention, habits, and contextual factors. The impact of barriers and enablers on specific stakeholders will also be investigated by conducting interviews with members of various electronics repair value chains. The interview results can then be compared with the academic research to assess the similarities and differences between research and practice.

By understanding the technological, financial, and sociological factors influencing specific types of repair and varying stakeholder priorities, business strategies can be more thoughtfully designed to target key aspects of the repair system. Future research may involve causal loop mapping of the most significant factors affecting electronics repair, or quantitative analysis of repair success factors in relation to particular repair system characteristics.

Bibliography

Bovea, M. D., Pérez-Belis, V., & Quemades-Beltrán, P. (2017). Attitude of the stakeholders involved in the repair and second-hand sale of small household electrical and electronic equipment: Case study in Spain. Journal of Environmental Management, 196, 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.02.069

European Commission. (2014). ATTITUDES OF EUROPEANS TOWARDS WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCE EFFICIENCY REPORT. https://doi.org/10.2779/14825

Freeman, R. E. E., & McVea, J. (2005). A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.263511

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401

Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. In Journal of Social Issues (Vol. 56, Issue 3).

Tansel, B. (2017). From electronic consumer products to e-wastes: Global outlook, waste quantities, recycling challenges. In Environment International (Vol. 98, pp. 35–45). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.10.002

Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal Behavior. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.