Amidst, homogenous and culturally diverse societies alike, ethnic minorities are frequently the target of discriminatory policies or attitudes which can lead to a reduced or complete lack of access to opportunities for social and economic inclusion.

In ‘melting pot’ of the US, 84% of black adults and 63% of white adults agree that black people are treated unjustly when dealing with the police.[1] In Myanmar, an ethnically diverse country recognising more than 135 ethnicities, discrimination against Rohingya people led to the existence of over 900,000 Rohingya refugees around the world.[2]  In Germany, where less than  10% of the population has foreign origins, people of African descent’s income is 25% below the national mean monthly net income.[3]  And, Mauritania, a country where slavery was only outlawed in 1981, still has a recorded 90.0000 enslaved people, mostly black people at the hands of Arab enslavers.[4]

Given, the scope of the issue, various terms such as ‘structural racism’ ‘white privilege’, ‘biological racism’ ‘cultural racism’ and ‘implicit bias’ have been coined to categorise how racism manifest itself.

But what is structural racism? And how does structural racism manifest itself in societies?

……….

Structural racism is two-pronged – a belief system which considers race or ethnicity as the key determinant of human capacities first, followed by the creation of structures and systems in society that replicate the core belief system.

Structural racism manifests itself in all facets of life in society including in public policies, institutional practices and general norms and attitudes. It propagates the idea that ‘whiteness’ is linked to positive qualities and colour to negative qualities. Structural racism basis itself on the ideology of biological racism (the belief that some races or ethnicities are biologically inferior) or cultural racism (the belief that one’s culture can be superior to others). An example of cultural and biological racism is the European settler colonialization of Africa, South America and other ‘savage’s lands’ from the 15^th to early 20^th century.  It is from the notion of structural racism that we can extract the meaning of ‘white privilege’ which denotes the societal privilege of white people over people of ethnic minorities in western societies. Within western societies, white privilege manifests itself also as the privilege that white people have of having positive relations with the police and greater access to the highly -skill job market. In countries where the majority population is not white, the majority can also be privileged in relations to institutional bodies and access to justice. For example, in Iraq, Roma people, particularly women who are often the target of sexual harassment by the majority Arab population, are less likely to report crimes to the police due to generalized disdain and discrimination against them.

Another important aspect in understanding the notion of Structural racism is also its intersectionality which denotes how factors such as gender, age, ethnicity and sexual orientation may overlap and create a hierarchy of social privilege. The intersectionality of racism translates into providing cisgender heterosexual men of the majority population with privileges that are not provided to all other groups. It also pushes people, particularly, women and non-binary individuals to the bottom of social hierarchy.

Structural racism can be glaring or hidden, state-mandated or people led.

A glaring example of people- led structural racism can be found in private sector redlining practices (systematic denial of services either directly or through the selective raising of prices) which impacts ethnic minorities access to financial offers (credit, mortgages, loans) and second sector services (nightclubs, stores etc) in various countries around the world. A glaring example of state-mandated structural racism can be found in China where the Communist political party has been carrying out for years systematic oppression of Uighur, Kazakhs and other ethnic Muslim minorities by forcing thousands to attend re-education camps intending to strip them of their culture and religious beliefs in favour of those of the majority Han Population.[5]

• 

Structural racism can also manifest itself in subtlety. An example of subtle structural racism is often found in hiring practices. When hiring teams interview candidates and assess who they think will best get along with the team, it’s often because that person shares similar interests, experiences and backgrounds; which is detrimental for the cultural diversity of the teams. This rings true for high earning jobs but also low earning jobs. Data from European Network Against Racism (ENAR) shows that people of African descent living in Portugal are overrepresented in the secondary sector of the labour market, consisting of low skilled jobs, low salaries, few promotion opportunities, and job insecurity.[6] In this case, racist stereotypes propel people of African descent into low-pay jobs. Moreover, while Denmark, Spain and the United Kingdom have high rates of overqualified ethnic minorities they are underrepresented in management positions.

While racist systems come from racist beliefs, intentionality is inconsequential in the construction of structural racism. In fact, structural racism can be unintentionally enacted by individuals and non-discriminatory infrastructures can also produce racist outcomes.

A clear example of an infrastructure producing produces unintentionally racist outcomes can be found in predictive policing systems, such as Northpointe in the USA. Northpointe is a software used to automatically calculate the risk of arrested people to re-offend. The scoring system ranging from 1-low risk to 10-high risk is used in considerations with regards to the provisional release of arrested people awaiting trial, amount of bail and even given to judges during criminal sentencing. While Northpointe was not created to take into consideration any factors concerning race it began to produce very biased results based on that very factor. One proposed theory is that since black people in the US are arrested more often than white people even though the incidence of crime is similar between both groups, the machine started to attribute higher rates of reoffending to black people even if they had no criminal record previous to their arrest.

In sum, structural racism refers to systems and structures that perpetuate racist beliefs and limit the socio-economic opportunities of ethnic minorities.  Structural racism can happen intentionally or absent-mindedly but whether ‘seen’ or not it impacts gravely the most vulnerable, driving up racial inequalities and discrimination.

References:

1. _{Pew Research Center: Race in America (2019)}
2. _{UNICEF Child Alert: Futures in the balance: Building hope for a generation of Rohingya children (2018)}
3. _{European Network Against Racism: Shadow Report (2013-2017)}
4. _{Human Rights Watch: Mauritania (2018)}
5. _{Amnesty International Up to One Million Detained in China’s Mass “Re-Education” Drive (2020)}
6. _{European Network Against Racism: Shadow Report (2013-2017)}

In the UN’s Secretary-General words “Violence against women is a global pandemic” well, so is Corona virus…

Since the beginning of the year over 5 million people have contracted the virus and at least 360 000 people have died from its associated health complications. However, these official numbers do not account for those who suffer from grave physical and emotional harm due to  restrictive quarantine measures, most notably the victims of domestic violence.

The intersection of the two pandemics is easy to rationalize but data is scarce: Data accurately reflecting the rate of domestic violence is hard to obtain as the UN estimates that less than 40% of victims of domestic violence actually seek help. However, without the freedom of movement and assembly, many perpetrators of domestic violence may choose to increasingly unload their frustrations on their household victims most typically wife or girlfriend and children. Correspondingly, these restrictions on movement also force millions of victims of domestic violence to live without refuge from their aggressors.

COVID19 disproportionately affects the quality of life of millions of women, girls and boys suffering from domestic violence worldwide. Thus, countries and civil society organisations have been developing innovative strategies to address the intersection of the two pandemics.

 

Correlation and causation in the case of COVID19 and GBV

Gender Based Violence crimes (crimes of physical, sexual and psychological violence committed primarily against women and girls) are thought to be amidst the most under-reported crimes worldwide.

It is known that the rate of GBV is positively correlated with the onset of crisis situations. Yet, the particular circumstances of the COVID19 pandemic response exacerbate domestic violence gravely.

The risk of experiencing intra-familial violence is increased by the conditions forced upon people due to the COVID19 pandemic response: loss of income and food insecurity for those unable to work from home; work related stress experienced by those able to work from home; health related anxieties or ailment and shifting responsibility roles within families.

Most glaringly, state mandated quarantines and curfews unintentionally aid perpetrators to achieve a higher control over their victims. Victims, under quarantine or curfew, also experience increased difficulties in accessing hygiene materials, life-saving information, shelters and other victim support organisations.

Thus, it is clear that instances of domestic violence are not only correlated but also exacerbated by COVID19 pandemic response.

 

Domestic violence crimes rates are going up as other crimes are going down

In the US, confinement measures have propelled a sharp decline in the crime rate of many big cities including a small decline domestic violence calls for help. Conversely, most European countries report a sharp increase in domestic violence calls for help.

It is thought that the reason why domestic calls for help have declined in some places is due to the victim’s inability to get ‘alone time’ in order to make those calls. A decrease in the calls for help also does not signify domestic crime is decreasing. In fact, intra-household murder rates seem to be increasing even in the US cities that reported a decrease in domestic violence calls for help.

Some European countries such as Denmark denote a two and a half time increase in the number of calls for help during the set quarantine period in comparison with the first two months of the year. The WHO (World Health Organisation) has also been troubled by reports from many European countries including but not exclusive to Belgium, Spain, the UK about increases in domestic violence.

Portugal has launched a free domestic violence text service to combat the difficulties of victims in accessing help due to lack of ‘alone time’. Human Rights Defenders in Uganda have now set up a toll-free line to respond to domestic violence cases. Chinese activists, who have seen a doubling of GBV rate in some provinces have launched a social media campaign with the hashtag #AntiDomesticViolenceDuringtheEpidemic.

The GBV AOR (an organisation comprised of NGOs, UN agencies and academia professionals) is also offering one-to-one meetings with other professionals who are integrating GBV response in their humanitarian aid and development projects.

How you can help victims of domestic violence during the quarantine

• Contribute towards local GBV related shelters and NGOs by volunteering and/or making a donation.
• Share information with regards to the prevention and response of GBV by phone and through your social media.
• If you think someone you know might be suffering from domestic violence please check in with potential victims through email, text message or phone. Also, contact your country’s GBV hotline/helpline for further advice (directory in Europe: https://ec.europa.eu/justice/saynostopvaw/helpline.html; GBV hotlines in various countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domestic_violence_hotlines)
• If you believe the victim is in current danger of grave physical harm or death,  immediately contact local authorities.

 

The terms feminism and gender equality raise confusion in men and women alike.

At some point in history (most likely between the mythical bra burning incidents of 1968 and Pussy Riot’s performance on the Cathedral of Christ Savior in 2012) the general public became mistakenly suspicious that Feminism was a radical man-hating theory.

While ‘Me too’ and other anti-sexual harassment activities are a part of the feminist movement many modern feminists refuse that identification while claiming to be supporters of ‘gender equality’.

 But what is feminism? What is the difference between feminism and gender equality? And, should or can men be feminists and strong leaders of the feminist movement?

 

“Feminism is the radical notion that women are people’.

Marie Shear

 

Feminism is theory that promotes and defends women’s rights on the basis of gender equality. Gender equality is the idea that the wants and needs of women and men should be equally considered and favored without prejudice based on gender. Hence, feminism also advocates for gender equality and gender equality too defends feminist principles.

 

One misunderstanding is the notion that feminism is not comparable to gender equality because the root of the word stems from ‘female’.

Controversies surrounding the naming of social justice issues is transversal to other movements such as Gay Rights and Black Lives Matters.  Many opponents of the latter feel uncomfortable with this naming because it should be obvious that all lives matter. However, if one of the current key issues of social justice in the US is that black people are disproportionally victimized by police brutality, we must push awareness that indeed ‘Black Lives Matter’.

Indeed, the naming of Feminism stems from the word female. It is so because the movement addresses the issues of a highly disenfranchised group in most of the worlds’ societies: women.

Currently, 35% percent of women worldwide have experienced violence by a non-partner; 71% of human trafficking victims are women and girls and the gender pay gap ranges between 4% and 20% in the Western World alone.  In the pursuit of gender equality, it’s important to highlight that ‘women’ are across the board the most disenfranchised group in the gender binary. (Please consult this article if you are looking to understand what the meaning of gender binary) 

 

Why is the feminism movement praised while the men’s rights movement is controversial?

Feminists want women to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to men hence they have no interest in putting men in a more disadvantaged situation. Conversely, men’s rights groups emerged as a countermovement to women’s emancipation.

The first ‘men’s rights’ group was created in Austria in 1927, a mere seven years after women received the right to vote and at a time when most major western powers were extending voting rights to women. At its inception and in various current manifestations men’s rights movements are anti-feminist and aim to “combat all excesses of women’s emancipation”.

Nowadays, there are a few noble manifestations of men’s rights movements which seek to address discrimination against men and boys while equally valuing feminist pursuits. Activists of pro-feminist men’s rights movements contest are concerned with how the perception of masculinity negatively impacts the treatment of men and boys in accessing justice (particularly in cases of family law and child custody) and in accessing mental health support and services.

 

Can men be feminists, and should they have a voice in the feminist movement?

All men and women can be feminists if they agree with the concept of gender equality and support the toppling of institutions and social and legal barriers that impede women’s abilities to get the same legal rights and social privileges afforded to men. Men should be feminist in their domestic, social and political live and their support in furthering the causes protected by Feminism.

However, doubts arise about the ability of men to be at the forefront of feminist discussion: The advocacy of women’s rights depends on the ability of women’s voices being heard!  It would not be appropriate for any man to lead the feminism movement because men do not suffer this discrimination at a personal level and are therefore incapable of finding suitable solutions. 

However, men do have an important supportive role in the Feminist movement: Men should use the privilege and power they are given in society to galvanize the feminist and gender equality agenda.

 

Margareth: Where have you been these four years? (being led away from the asylum by her younger brother who requested her release)

Brother: What are you talking about?!  I was growing up!

Margareth: Well, you didn’t grow up fast enough, did you?

 

Topics explored: #genderviolence, #forcedlabour, #religion #sexualpromiscuity

Inspired by real life events, The Magdalene Sisters (2002) provide an accurate, yet saddening, portrayal of the Magdalene Asylums.

The Magdalene Asylums were a catholic ran and state supported institution, which operated in Ireland in the 18th and 20th century.

These institutions, also known as the Magdalene Laundries, held thousands of young women captive for a life of unpaid manual labour and religious devotion.

They first came under scrutiny in 1993 when a mass grave of 150 corpses were discovered in one of the asylums. Private investigations led by the media resulted in the uncovering of serious human rights violations. Ireland has susbsequentially paid 50 million pounds in compensation to the victims.

This British drama film directed by Peter Manon revolves around the lives of three

fictional characters: Rose, who birthed a child out of wedlock; Margareth who was raped at a family celebration and Bernadette, a flirty orphan, raised in a children’s home.

True to victim testimony, young women were usually sent by their male family members to these institutions to redeem themselves for moral transgressions of a sexual nature. They were referred to as ‘fallen women’. Their “crimes”? ‘Sexual promiscuity’. In the begining the Magdalene Asylums mostly targeted prostitutes. But, overtime the term ‘fallen women’ was expanded to include unwed mothers, lesbians, rape victims, ‘flirty’ women or any woman who did not abide by the strict Irish moral code. And so did the asylums expand the scope of their victims.

The Catholic nuns, who ran the covents, ran them on a strict terror regime. They physically assaulted, degraded and forced the women to do unpaid heavy manual labour. Away from prying eyes and within the confinement of the asylums, they reigned supreme and subjected the young women, under their care, to inhumane treatment and slavery.

This movie is a great starting point for those interested in understanding the effects of patriarchy in the dehumanisation of women. The movie also portrays issues concerning  religious guardianship of vulnerable people, the double victimisation of sexual abuse survivors and the unfair burden of sexuality in women.

This movie is available to watch in streaming platforms such as Netflix, Amazon and Youtube Movies.

 

Banality and evil seem to be two contrasting words.

However,  the proposition that evildoers are indeed banal is transversal to various important  20th century world events and political writings. Who gets to define what is evil? George W Bush, famously described Iran, Iraq and North Korea,  as an Axis of Evil. Hitler is often described as an evil monster while Mein Kampf describes his thought of  Jews has the “symbol of all evil”. Pro-lifers circulate  the ‘10 reasons why abortion is evil…” article while pro-choice advocates state they are merely for a woman’s right to make her own reproductive health decisions. Tony Blair described Saddam Hussein as “But, the man is uniquely evil, isn’t he?” while the shorfalls of western world are often  described as the evils of modern society. Evil, is a mystifying concept only because it is very personal in its use.

So, what is evil within the context of human rights? And, should we even use the concept of evil in political or philosophical discourse?

 

What is evil? 

Evil is a profoundly immoral action.

Crime, wrongdoing and evil are all malicious intents against the public welfare. In traditional philosophical views these are closely related terms belonging to the spectrum of morality. In a law abiding society, it is imperative to distinguish evil from other concepts describing dishonourable conduct. So what is the difference between crime, wrongdoing and evil?

• Crime is a legally punishable offence. This type of offence, which might be by action or omission, is always unlawful. Burglary, assault and fraud are examples of crimes in most jurisdictions.
• Wrongdoing is an offence to moral righteousness. Wrongdoings might be criminal or not. For example, although lying and cheating may be morally reprehensible, they are not criminal offences in most jurisdictions. While a crime is clearly defined in legal codes, wrongdoing is intrinsic to personal judgment.
• Evil is an action of “destructive, unmerciful and corrosive nature”. Just like wrongdoings, evil is not always a legally punishable offence. Within the field of human rights evil is generally ascribed to the worst crimes of human cruelty such as genocide, torture and murder.

Crime and wrongdoing fit the spectrum of morality. However,  certain aspects of human cruelty deviate so greatly from the norm that they can only be understood under the paradigm of evil. 

Genocide, cannot just be considered a moral wrong. Genocide cannot be only described as an injustice.  Therefore, philosophers such as Maria Pia Lara and Hannah Arendt, defended that certain aspects of human cruelty need an autonomous sphere of morality.

According to these two authors, evil is a necessary postmethaphysical concept in political theory.  It is postmethaphysical as cruelty and suffering  are concepts which are hard to describe with the use of conceptual tools:

“We don’t need to focus on the concept of intentionality of the subject in order to understand the role of the perpetrator, nor we need to measure the amount of pain inflicted upon the victim to understand what is morally at stake.”

HannahArendt

Lara’s theory of evil expands its understanding by recognising that evil also differs from plain cruelty, since animals can be cruel to each other. Evil intends on stripping a person of its humanity. Evil robs people of certain human characteristics such as spontaneity, freedom, plurality and dignity.

Given the seriousness of Evil, it is hard to imagine it could ever be banal or that its perpectrators could even be thoughtless. However, that is exactly what the theory of the banality of evil proposes.

 

What is the banality of evil?

The theory of the banality of evil defends that perpetrators of human cruelty are often rather normal individuals. These evildoers are not sadistic monsters but rather thoughtless conformists and, the normality of the evildoers is utterly terrifying.

This theory was coined by HannahArendt in her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem. A report on the banality of Evil. The book was largely based on a series of articles that Hannah Arendt wrote for the New York in 1961 while covering the trial of Eichmann, a high ranking SS officer, in Jerusalem.

 

Eichmann was a Transportation Administrator for the ‘Final Solution to the Jewish Problem’. He personally authorised the deportation of six millions Jews into concentration camps during the Nazi Regime. Hannah Arendt describes her first impressions of Eichmann as not at all horrible, and states “Despite all the efforts of the prosecution, everybody could see that this man was not a monster, but it was difficult indeed not to suspect that he was aclown”.

Throughout the trial, Eichmann seemed to be unable to think critically, speaking largely in  stock phrases and Nazi cliches. Eichmann did not hold any personal  hatred against Jews. He justifies his role in the genocide by stating he was merely doing his job.  He claimed to be not guilty of crimes against humanity as he had never directly killed anyone Jewish or otherwise. By all accounts, Eichmann was an obedient employee and law abiding citizen of the Nazi regime. His willingness to conform, desire to obey and lack of critical thought are all banal traits in human beings.  Arendt considered that while the evil-doer was banal, the actions were monstruous and not at all common.

The theory of the banality of evil has also been explored in scientific studies such as the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Stanley Miligram experiment. Both studies, concluded that under the right circumstances ordinary people could be influenced  to commit atrocious acts such as torture and murder.

The theory of  the banality of evil denotes  that imagining  evildoers as sadistical monsters is a convenient escapism.  It allows us escape the confrontation with our own morality,  the morality of our elected leaders and the morality of our political systems. In the context of politics, obedience is support and,  as citizens,  each of us,  has the ability to do good, bad or even evil.

 

Reccomended readings:

Arendt, H. 1963,  Eichmann in Jerusalem. A report on the banality of Evil.

Lara, P.M. 2007, Narrating Evil. A Post Metaphysical theory of Reflective Judgment.

 

 

Social Enterprises are of special significance to the legal theory of business and human rights. As enterprises which pursue the common good under a commercial strategy, they create an insurmountable bond between business and human rights. 

However, social enterprises remain largely legally undefined and this vacuum creates an interesting opportunity for legal and moral speculation: Is it possible that SEs hold greater human rights responsibilities than other types of enterprises? How do SEs contribute towards the betterment of society? And most importantly:  Can SEs combine good and greed?

 

 

Two opposing views

“The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.”

Gordon Gekko , Wall Street: Money never sleeps

“Greed is the inventor of injustice as well as the current enforcer.”

                                                                                        Julian Casablancas

 

Legal definitions and regional understandings

There is no global legal consensus on the definition of a social enterprise (SE). There are however two dominant conceptions of SEs (the European perspective and the North American perspective), and a definition provided by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

The OECD has made efforts to clarify the term SE and associated notions such as social entrepreneurship, social entrepreneur and social innovation. It classifies social entrepreneurship as a movement that responds to social challenges with innovative commercial solutions. SEs reject the traditional exploitation of the market opportunities for financial profit. But, rather capitalize it for the improvement of social conditions and local communities.

Social Entrepreneur, Nobel Prize Winner and Founder of the Grameen Bank Muhammad Yunus. By University of Salford Press Office https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=38983058

 

According to the OECD, the social entrepreneur, aims for the creation of social currency rather than financial currency. However, it states that social entrepreneurship attitudes can be found in the for-profit and public sector under corporate philanthropy and governmental social projects. The difference between a social entrepreneur and a commercial entrepreneur is that “social entrepreneurs create social value, but are not motivated by the appropriation of this value”.

The European consensus on SEs is set out by the European Commission in both the Social Business Initiative and Guide to Social Innovation reports. While the documents do not provide a legally binding definition of SEs they are a good summary of European understandings.

Within Europe, SEs are enterprises created to eliminate or reduce a social problem. This concept excludes for-profits whose economic activities unintentionally benefit local communities. The European Comission states that “The common good is the reason for the commercial activity”. Social impact is the primary goal, therefore SEs are expected to remain non-profit by reinvesting their financial gains in the project or in the community.

The American conception of SE disregards whether social impact is the primary goal. Additionally, it is irrelevant whether the profits are reinvested in the social goal. Its bottom-line is the assertion that the commercial activity improves a social issue. In practice, most SEs in the US come in the form of nonprofits with income generating commercial activity. As nonprofits are exempt from federal tax, the US has a rigorous 5 part test to ascertain whether an organization is nonprofit. Insubstantial commercial activity is allowed as long as it enhances the primary social goal of the nonprofit.  However, what constitutes an insubstantial or substantial commercial activity is not legally defined.

In both regional understandings, the social impact goal, remains the defining characteristic of an SE. One might even advocate that SEs contribute towards the advancement of human rights by facilitating their full realization.

 

 

Distrust of the morality of SEs

It might be difficult for SEs to combine the greed of a commercial/capitalist approach with the good of charitable organizations. Critics of SEs, cite three main reasons for the distrusting their morality:

 

1. Altruism or branding?

Public reputation weighs heavily on enterprises’ profitability. Nowadays, enterprises profit from being perceived as  being socially responsible or even socially innovative. Having a good reputation is crucial for customer acquisition and retention. As such, there is the danger that some enterprises seek the SE label with the sole intent of increasing their social branding and consequentially their earnings. This concern seems especially relevant in the American context where social enterprises might be for profit organisations.

 

2. The Financial growth of non-profits inciting the abandonment of the social strategy

There are cases in which a non-profit SE’s success seems to propel it to  change its legal status to for profit enterprise. Even the Grameen Bank, which popularized the use of microcredit, as shifted from being a non-profit to a for-profit bank. Other community development banks, such as the SKS Microfinance have also made this switch. This trend is worrying for a couple of reasons. Firstly,  using the notoriety gained as a nonprofit, including connections and public support, to benefit a later on for-profit enterprise seems morally questionable. Secondly, this switch implies the assumption that for-profit SEs work more efficiently than non-profit SEs, which is incorrect.

 

3. The correct administration of public goods or services by SEs

The State is the only entity that holds the responsibility to ensure the welfare of all its members within a specific territory. Therefore, there can be dangerous consequences of allowing  the administration of public goods by private entities. Private Prisons are a prime example of a current hot topic in the realm of business and human rights. On one hand, many private prisons offer better housing conditions to prisoners than governmental prisons, due to their customer service logic. On the other hand, the fact that prison guards are enterprise employees rather than governmental employees leads to various concerns with regards to prisoner safety. Furthermore, the legality of prison labour becomes blurry within private prisons as in this case, the prisoners minimal wages would benefit a private entity.

 

Should we trust the morality of SEs? How can we trust them more?

 

Ziqitza ZHLs is an indian  social enterprise which dispatches a string of private ambulances. It introduced a an emergency number in thecountry, has a high poverty outreach and only charges patients who can afford to pay for the service. Photo credits to https://www.businesscalltoaction.org/news/zhl-provides-ambulance-access-all-part-new-bcta-initiative-india

 

It is inadvisable to trust blindly the morality of any entity. In fact, this is what propels the creation of laws. However, there have been hundreds of excellent examples of how SEs can contribute for the improvement of social conditions and the advancement of human rights.

The first step to reduce the danger of the corruption of SEs’ social impact is to create tighter legal parameters. There must be a clearer judicial definition of SEs and prescribed legal remedies.

One great avenue for the regulation of SEs behaviour is through the mandatory upkeep of the voluntary commitments they  assumed. Codes of conduct and due diligence processes, which are voluntary commitments about an enterprise’s social impact, may become judicially enforceable within the scope of contractual law and advertisement law.

Extending these voluntary commitments into judicially remedied obligations would sets off a more powerful legal doctrine of business and human rights and increase trust in SEs.

 

Reccomended readings

• Doeringer, M.F. (2010) Fostering social enterprises: A historical and International analysis In Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1581525
• European Commission (2011) Social Business Initiative. Creating a favourable climate for social enterprises, key stakeholders in the social economy and innovation. COM(2011) 682 final.

If you are interested in this topic I also recommend watching the documentary The Corporation by https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jheIz0gl5Zs by Jennifer Abbott et Mark Achbar. Additionally,I would also recommend getting acquainted with the work of some phenomenal social enterprises such ZHL Ziquitza and +Acumen.