Global Production, CSR and Human Rights: The Courts of Public Opinion and the Social License to Operate

This paper takes at its starting point the responsibility placed upon corporations by the United Nations’ Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework as elaborated upon by the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to respect human rights. The overt pragmatism and knowledge of the complex business relationships that are embedded in global production led John Ruggie, the author of the Framework, to adopt a structure for the relationship between human rights and business that built on the existing practices of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). His intention was that these practices should be developed to embrace respect for human rights by exhorting corporations to move from “the era of declaratory CSR” to showing a demonstrable policy commitment to respect for human rights. The prime motivation for corporations to do this was, according to Ruggie, because the responsibility to respect was one that would be guarded and judged by the “courts of public opinion” as part of the social expectations imposed upon corporations or to put it another way as a condition of a corporation’s social license to operate.
This article sets out the background context to the Framework and examines the structures that it puts forward. In its third and final section the article looks at how the Framework requires a corporation’s social license to be assembled and how and by whom that social license will be judged. The success or failure of the Framework in persuading corporations to respect human rights is tied to whether “the courts of public opinion” can use their “naming and shaming power” effectively.

Public Private Partnerships: A Global Review

This book provides an international perspective on Public Private Partnerships. Through 21 case studies, it investigates the existing and fast developing body of principles and practices from a wide range of countries and is the first book to bring together leading international academics and practitioners under a common framework that enables convenient cross-country comparisons. The authors focus on the impact of the financial crisis has had on how governments have reviewed and overhauled their PPP policies as they have examined or tested new ways of partnering more effectively, efficiently and sustainably with the private sector.
Readers will be able to gauge the level of maturity of PPP development in the book’s case studies, understand similarities and differences in their practices, and gain useful insights into the regulatory framework and institutional infrastructure in place to support implementation of PPP. Finally, the book offers insights into the future challenges and opportunities that PPP offers stakeholders.

An Overview of Public Private Partnership

In many developed and developing countries there has been a move toward an increased reliance on Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) for infrastructure development. This involves an engagement with, or participation of, private companies and the public sector in the financing and provision of infrastructure. In most countries these PPP arrangements have been aimed at overcoming broad public sector constraints in relation to either a lack of public capital; and/or a lack of public sector capacity, resources and specialized expertise to develop, manage, and operate infrastructure assets.
In a number of countries Public Private Partnerships are now commonly used to accelerate economic growth, development and infrastructure delivery and to achieve quality service delivery and good governance. The spectrum of nature and types of public private partnerships (PPPs) are vast, making a precise and complete definition of a PPP difficult. However, significant developments in the use of PPP in many countries have made it increasingly important to understand these practices, as well as to unveil any underlying common principles and problems and to capture and develop a body of good practices, where such can be achieved.

What motion distributions yield global transparency and spatial segmentation?

We have examined the ability of observers to parse bimodal local-motion distributions into two global motion surfaces, either overlapping (yielding transparent motion) or spatially segregated (yielding a motion boundary). The stimuli were random dot kinematograms in which the direction of motion of each dot was drawn from one of two rectangular probability distributions. A wide range of direction distribution widths and separations was tested. The ability to discriminate the direction of motion of one of the two motion surfaces from the direction of a comparison stimulus was used as an objective test of the perception of two discrete surfaces. Performance for both transparent and spatially segregated motion was remarkably good, being only slightly inferior to that achieved with a single global motion surface. Performance was consistently better for segregated motion than for transparency. Whereas transparent motion was only perceived with direction distributions which were separated by a significant gap, segregated motion could be seen with abutting or even partially overlapping direction distributions. For transparency, the critical gap increased with the range of directions in the distribution. This result does not support models in which transparency depends on detection of a minimum size of gap defining a bimodal direction distribution. We suggest, instead, that the operations which detect bimodality are scaled (in the direction domain) with the overall range of distributions. This yields a flexible, adaptive system that determines whether a gap in the direction distribution serves as a segmentation cue or is smoothed as part of a unitary computation of global motion.

Public awareness and views on unlicensed use of medicines in children.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT center dot There is increasing concern about the use of those medicines in children which have not been fully studied and licensed for childhood use. Such use is not uncommon, due in large part to a lack of availability of fully licensed products and formulations that are suitable for children. center dot There is little published information on the views of the public on this important area of paediatric care. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS center dot A survey of 1000 members of the public in Northern Ireland indicated that such use of medicines in children is not well known. center dot However, when informed about this practice, the majority believed that it would compromise safety and increase the likelihood of adverse effects. They also believed that parents/guardians should be told if their child was prescribed a medicine that had not been fully tested in children. center dot Participants in the survey indicated that they would be reluctant to involve their child in a clinical trial to help with the licensing process unless the child was suffering from a life-threatening illness. To explore awareness and views of the general public on unlicensed use of medicines in children and on the participation of children in clinical trials. Members of the public completed a questionnaire survey administered by face-to-face interview in public areas in N. Ireland. The main outcome measures were the views on unlicensed use of medicines in children and on clinical trials in children. One thousand participants (59.2% female) took part; 610 were parents. Most participants (86%) had no previous knowledge about unlicensed use of medicines in children. Being a parent did not influence this nor did being a parent of a child who suffered from a health problem (P > 0.05). Most participants (92%) felt that parents should be told about unlicensed use of medicines, with the doctor most frequently selected as the person who should inform parents. At the outset, only 1.8% of participants felt that the use of medicines in children was unsafe. However, having been informed about unlicensed use of medicines, this proportion increased dramatically (62.4%; P <0.001). Views on whether participants would enter a child of their own into a clinical trial varied according to the health status of the child (P <0.05) i.e. a child in good health (3.9%) vs a child with a life-threatening condition (41.9%). There is limited public knowledge of unlicensed use of medicines in children and a general reluctance to involve children in clinical trials unless the child to be involved has a life-threatening condition.