Does Corporate Hypocrisy Predict When Firms Will Shirk Remedy Responses For Human Rights Abuses?

Abstract

Following an overview of literature on corporate human rights abuse and remedy, we employ a qualitative comparative analysis approach based on the logic of fuzzy sets (fsQCA) (Crilly et al., 2012; Fiss, 2007; Ragin, 2008), to explore varying configurations of talk, decisions, activist NGO initiatives, and state involvement that may lead to additional action steps toward remedy for corporate human rights abuses. Our findings show that aspirational talk alone is not sufficient to lead to action, contrary to recent theorizing within organized hypocrisy scholarship (Christensen, et. al., 2020). Without NGO pressure, corporate hypocrisy prevails when it comes to human rights remedy: Firms that engage in human rights talk are no more likely to take action toward remedy than indifferent firms who do not engage with human rights. But with NGO involvement, firms’ human rights talk seems to provide leverage to pressure firms to take consistent action. When it comes to human rights abuse, firms that make empty promises should be prepared to match their talk with action because organized hypocrisy provides a trigger for NGOs to effectively apply pressure for remedy.