444 By Susan Ariel Aaronson and David Deese With a reaction by ...

What seems clear is that meaningful steps to limit greenhouse gas emissions arecontingent on a national consensus and internationally-sanctioned rules of the game. Itcan be argued that IOCs should be leading the charge to arrive at a workable consensusand policy framework in an area so integral to their business. But again, there is a clearconnection to shareholder value, leaving aside the question of global stakeholdership.Some IOCs are engaged exactly in this process, but not all, and it is not clear whether thevariation in response, particularly between American and European companies, is duesolely to a company’s national origin or because of its home government’s view ofnational interests.Oil Companies’ Responsibility for Human RightsThis is another interesting case on whether oil companies have an obligationdistinct from, and in excess of, compliance with home and host country laws andpractices. Once again an argument can be made that it is in the enlightened self interestsof IOCs to do so, since it protects their long-term business interests. Indeed, human rightsconditions are factored into companies’ investment calculations—using a risked rate ofreturn to weigh alternative investments. To the extent that one country is judged to beriskier because of its human rights violations, companies will require an offsetting higherpotential rate of return to compensate for assuming the risks associated with an unstableinvestment climate and operating conditions.Should the international community demand a higher standard than this? And ifso, what should the standard be? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is probablynot the right answer, since it is unevenly observed by its signatory states. Are thereinstead voluntary principles geared specifically toward corporations, just as the Sullivan472