基于风险的全球矿产供应链尽职调查报告和透明度规则

Marissa E. A. A. M. Ooms
{"title":"基于风险的全球矿产供应链尽职调查报告和透明度规则","authors":"Marissa E. A. A. M. Ooms","doi":"10.1080/20508840.2022.2033943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines the operation of transparency as a technique of power and rule in the governance of global mineral supply chains. It focuses on reporting and auditing practices associated with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas. The due diligence regime sets norms to help corporations avoid the risk that their operations or mineral sourcing practices contribute to conflict and human rights violations. It manifests the widely held view that transparency is key to enabling the public to hold corporations to account for negative impacts of their practices. This article recasts risk-based due diligence reporting and auditing as techniques of rule ‘through’ law that are intrinsically unable to fulfil such normative objectives. In the minerals due diligence regime, ‘transparency’ is produced through the disclosure of risk management procedures, which involves a technical and abstract language that speaks to a corporate audience, but is unable to convey substantive information to stakeholders. Furthermore, the regulatory focus on risk management means that transparency techniques have an internal and procedural orientation towards the transformation of corporate systems of ‘internal control’. Risk-based due diligence reporting and auditing serve to disclose the corporation to itself and produce a perception of ‘responsible’ corporate subjects that improve risk management systems, while ‘the public’ is positioned as a passive audience of corporate performances of transparency and assurance. Thus, this article problematises the capacity of transparency-based regulation to facilitate the envisioned reflexive internal-external interaction between corporations and the public.","PeriodicalId":42455,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk-based due diligence reporting in global mineral supply chains and the rule through transparency\",\"authors\":\"Marissa E. A. A. M. Ooms\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20508840.2022.2033943\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article examines the operation of transparency as a technique of power and rule in the governance of global mineral supply chains. It focuses on reporting and auditing practices associated with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas. The due diligence regime sets norms to help corporations avoid the risk that their operations or mineral sourcing practices contribute to conflict and human rights violations. It manifests the widely held view that transparency is key to enabling the public to hold corporations to account for negative impacts of their practices. This article recasts risk-based due diligence reporting and auditing as techniques of rule ‘through’ law that are intrinsically unable to fulfil such normative objectives. In the minerals due diligence regime, ‘transparency’ is produced through the disclosure of risk management procedures, which involves a technical and abstract language that speaks to a corporate audience, but is unable to convey substantive information to stakeholders. Furthermore, the regulatory focus on risk management means that transparency techniques have an internal and procedural orientation towards the transformation of corporate systems of ‘internal control’. Risk-based due diligence reporting and auditing serve to disclose the corporation to itself and produce a perception of ‘responsible’ corporate subjects that improve risk management systems, while ‘the public’ is positioned as a passive audience of corporate performances of transparency and assurance. Thus, this article problematises the capacity of transparency-based regulation to facilitate the envisioned reflexive internal-external interaction between corporations and the public.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theory and Practice of Legislation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theory and Practice of Legislation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2022.2033943\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2022.2033943","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文考察了透明度作为一种权力和规则技术在全球矿产供应链治理中的作用。它侧重于与经济合作与发展组织(OECD)关于受冲突影响和高风险地区矿产负责任供应链的尽职调查指南相关的报告和审计实践。尽职调查制度制定了规范,以帮助企业避免其运营或矿产采购行为导致冲突和侵犯人权的风险。它体现了一种广泛持有的观点,即透明度是使公众能够要求公司对其做法的负面影响负责的关键。本文将基于风险的尽职调查报告和审计重新定义为“通过”法律的规则技术,这些技术本质上无法实现这些规范性目标。在矿产尽职调查制度中,“透明度”是通过风险管理程序的披露来产生的,这涉及到一种技术和抽象的语言,它向企业受众讲述,但无法向利益相关者传达实质性信息。此外,对风险管理的监管重点意味着透明度技术具有内部和程序性的导向,旨在转变公司的“内部控制”制度。基于风险的尽职调查报告和审计有助于向公司自身披露信息,并产生“负责任”的公司主体的看法,从而改善风险管理体系,而“公众”则被定位为公司透明度和保证表现的被动受众。因此,本文对基于透明度的监管促进公司与公众之间预期的反身性内外部互动的能力提出了质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Risk-based due diligence reporting in global mineral supply chains and the rule through transparency
ABSTRACT This article examines the operation of transparency as a technique of power and rule in the governance of global mineral supply chains. It focuses on reporting and auditing practices associated with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas. The due diligence regime sets norms to help corporations avoid the risk that their operations or mineral sourcing practices contribute to conflict and human rights violations. It manifests the widely held view that transparency is key to enabling the public to hold corporations to account for negative impacts of their practices. This article recasts risk-based due diligence reporting and auditing as techniques of rule ‘through’ law that are intrinsically unable to fulfil such normative objectives. In the minerals due diligence regime, ‘transparency’ is produced through the disclosure of risk management procedures, which involves a technical and abstract language that speaks to a corporate audience, but is unable to convey substantive information to stakeholders. Furthermore, the regulatory focus on risk management means that transparency techniques have an internal and procedural orientation towards the transformation of corporate systems of ‘internal control’. Risk-based due diligence reporting and auditing serve to disclose the corporation to itself and produce a perception of ‘responsible’ corporate subjects that improve risk management systems, while ‘the public’ is positioned as a passive audience of corporate performances of transparency and assurance. Thus, this article problematises the capacity of transparency-based regulation to facilitate the envisioned reflexive internal-external interaction between corporations and the public.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Theory and Practice of Legislation aims to offer an international and interdisciplinary forum for the examination of legislation. The focus of the journal, which succeeds the former title Legisprudence, remains with legislation in its broadest sense. Legislation is seen as both process and product, reflection of theoretical assumptions and a skill. The journal addresses formal legislation, and its alternatives (such as covenants, regulation by non-state actors etc.). The editors welcome articles on systematic (as opposed to historical) issues, including drafting techniques, the introduction of open standards, evidence-based drafting, pre- and post-legislative scrutiny for effectiveness and efficiency, the utility and necessity of codification, IT in legislation, the legitimacy of legislation in view of fundamental principles and rights, law and language, and the link between legislator and judge. Comparative and interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged. But dogmatic descriptions of positive law are outside the scope of the journal. The journal offers a combination of themed issues and general issues. All articles are submitted to double blind review.
期刊最新文献
Regulatory capture in energy sector: evidence from Indonesia Operationalisation of legislation and the will of legislators in the judgments of international courts of war crimes and post-war recovery Observing law-making patterns in times of crisis Exploring the relationship between law and governance: a proposal Governing during the COVID-19 pandemic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1