RSS FeedPodcast: Corporate Social Responsibility Blog
On last week’s podcast, we brought you Part 1 of Omar Ha-Redeye’s interview with Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP Associate Jason MacLean. MacLean is one of the contributors to Corporate Social Responsibility – A Legal Analysis. In Part 1 of the interview, MacLean talked about the precautionary principle and how it can create a competitive advantage for the corporations that embrace it. He also discussed how securities law may lead to investors demanding more complete disclosure of the environmental impacts of a corporation’s activities.
This week, we feature Part 2 of Omar’s interview with Jason MacLean. In this episode, MacLean discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in the BCE case, as well as the transition from writing a book to publishing a blog about corporate social responsibility. The blog enables MacLean and his co-authors to chronicle the latest developments in corporate social responsibility and the law without being frozen in time.
Podcast: Corporate Social Responsibility & Rural BC Law Jobs
Today’s podcast features two interviews. First, part 1 of 2 with Jason MacLean on corporate social responsibility (CSR)
Jason MacLean on Corporate Social Responsibility
Jason MacLean is an Associate in the Litigation Group at the Toronto office of Osler, Hoskin & Harcout LLP. He is one of the contributors to the new book Corporate Social Responsibility – A Legal Analysis. He also writes for CSR Law, a new blog covering developments in corporate social responsibility law.
Today’s show features Part One of Omar Ha-Redeye’s two-part interview with MacLean. He discusses the precautionary principle, environmental stewardship, and some of the arguments against CSR. MacLean argues that embracing the precautionary principle can create a competitive advantage for corporations. In the long run, he believes that corporations that embrace environmental stewardship will succeed in the market, whereas companies that fail to disclose environmental risks to employees, shareholders, and customers will run into business and legal challenges.
Next week, we will feature Part Two of the interview, in which MacLean discusses the evolution from book to blog as well as impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders, 2008 SCC 69.
Michael Litchfield on Access to Lawyers in Rural British Columbia
Also on today’s show, we speak with Michael Litchfield from the Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch about the Rural Education and Access to Lawyers (REAL) Initiative. This initiative is taking a multi-faceted approach to promoting access to legal services in rural communities using techniques including:
- funding summer student placements in rural BC;
- providing financial and promotional support for marketing of regions to law students and lawyers;
- providing support for students interested in practicing in small communities; and
- providing support for law firms and practitioners with recruitment, hiring, and retention.
So far, the REAL Initiative has helped to create and fill 11 summer student positions in rural BC.
Shell & The Elephant In The Room
First posted on Commercial Law International on June 9, 2009.
By Charles Wanguhu
A report by the Economist Intelligence Unit indicates that protecting a firm’s reputation is the most important and difficult task facing corporations. With the development of global media and communication channels, managing reputational damage is seen as crucial with events undertaken in even the remotest areas affecting the international brand of a corporation.
For Shell the stark reality of reputational damage is all too clear. After years and years of denial and expressing its innocence of the Ogoni affair (it still maintains its innocence), Shell has decided to settle a case brought against it out of court for a sum of 15.5 Million US $. The lawsuit had accused the company of colluding with Nigeria’s former military regime over the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and other peaceful anti-oil protesters.
Like Nike before it Shell remains in many minds as the poster child of a lack of corporate responsibility especially in big multinationals. The Saro Wiwa case is largely sited not only in commercial classrooms but across NGO conferences worldwide. Multinationals are viewed as bulldozing their way with the help of corrupt and dictatorial regimes to fulfill their interests with complete disregard to vulnerable communities.
The perception of Shell as the irresponsible corporate persists despite the fact that it has invested millions in engaging communities in areas that it works in and has increasingly taken on human rights in its business models and stakeholder engagement strategies.
In response to the case filed Malcolm Brinded, Shell’s executive director for exploration and production, was quoted,
“While we were prepared to go to court to clear our name, we believe the right way forward is to focus on the future for Ogoni people, which is important for peace and stability in the region.”
The settlement could be seen as a magnanimous move by Shell in some quarters with some already hailing the move as groundbreaking in terms of holding corporations accountable. However when looked at broadly the settlement will be seen as a coup for Shells PR team: instead of having weeks, months or even years of a contested trial where Shells actions or lack of thereof would be once again stirred up in everyone’s mind globally, a quick settlement offers a quick escape route.
All in all $15.5Million may well be considered a bargain when factoring in legal costs, reputation risks and lost revenue. There could well have been some champagne popped at Shell HQs but am sure downstairs in the legal department the wait is on with baited breath to see whether the floodgates have been open.
Podcast Feeds
Awards
Partners
- Advertise Here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Whiners - The Elusive Fish Creative Services
- Mesothelioma Lawyer
- no win no fee solicitors
- Compensation Claims
- personal injury lawyer toronto
- no win no fee
- Pardons Canada Accident Claim Medical Negligence Whiplash Claim
- No win No fee Claims
- Venue
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
