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

Caveats on Firms as StakeholdersWe believe no company can consistently act as a responsible stakeholder becauseresponsible stakeholdership is not defined under international law. Companies are verydifferent from states, and cannot be held to the same standards as states. Where managershave control, (e.g. when an issue affects their operations), companies can more easilyconform to emerging international norms. But in other instances (as in climate change ornational development policy), companies have limited leverage to shape emerging norms;they can only respond to market forces. In such cases, we discuss whether they use theirinfluence appropriately or at all.Although we can’t firmly define “responsible stakeholdership” for the big 5, wecan delineate some broad parameters for such behavior. We believe that responsibleprivate oil companies would provide affordable, plentiful access to various energysources. They would also invest in alternative energies and do their best to plan for futureenergy sources when supply is limited and prices are high. In addition, these firms wouldstrive to act responsibly in countries where governance (of the environment, markets, andhuman rights) is inadequate. They would develop policies to ensure that they were notcomplicit with human rights abuses and would work to ensure that their activities werenot built on conflict or corruption.In general, corporations do not have specific responsibilities under internationallaw. Nonetheless, private firms do have some international responsibilities. AsGeorgetown Law Professor Carlos Manuel Vazquez has noted, corporations are artificialgroups of natural persons. Just as individuals have some responsibilities underinternational law, so do corporations acting as conglomerations of individuals.147446