Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) or corporate social impact is a form of international private business self-regulation [1] which aims to contribute to societal goals of a philanthropic, activist, or charitable nature by engaging in, with, or supporting professional service volunteering through pro bono programs, community development ...
Corporate responsibility is a term which has come to characterize a family of professional disciplines intended to help a corporation stay competitive by maintaining accountability to its four main stakeholder groups: customers, employees, shareholders, and communities.
Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 204 Mich 459; 170 NW 668 (1919), [1] is a case in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford had to operate the Ford Motor Company in the interests of its shareholders, rather than in a manner for the benefit of his employees or customers.
A corporate scandal involves alleged or actual unethical behavior by people acting within or on behalf of a corporation. Many recent corporate collapses and scandals have involved some type of false or inappropriate accounting (see list at accounting scandals).
Corporate liability for extraterritorial harms has been allowed by the Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh and D.C. Circuits but an increasing number of procedural limitations restricting access of foreign plaintiffs to redress have emerged. [26] The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Kiobel v.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) [6] is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model. CSR policy functions as a built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby a business monitors and ensures its active compliance within the spirit of the law, ethical standards, and international norms.
The word "assumption" is therefore something of a misnomer. The phrase "attachment" of responsibility might be more accurate. 65. Responsibility was imposed in Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [1970] AC 1004, where the Home Office was held liable for damage done by escaping Borstal boys over whom the Home Office had had control. Its control ...
United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (1998), is a United States corporate law and environmental law case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the indirect liability of a parent corporation under CERCLA is to be determined by its control over a subsidiary's facility, rather than the relationship between the corporation and subsidiary.