Big Companies Profit from Poverty but Aren’t Obliged to Uphold Human Rights
Why Read This
What Makes This Article Worth Your Time
Summary
What This Article Is About
Legal scholar Bonita Meyersfeld challenges the current international law framework that exempts multinational corporations from direct human rights obligations. While over 1.3 billion people live in poverty—with 21,300 dying daily from poverty-related causes—corporations continue to profit from exploitation in the global south without legal accountability. The existing UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights rely on voluntary corporate compliance and state regulation, creating a system where powerful multinationals negotiate favorable conditions with economically vulnerable countries.
Meyersfeld proposes that international law should impose direct duties on corporations to fulfill socio-economic rights (housing, education, food, water, healthcare) under specific circumstances. Using factors including violation extent, victim vulnerability, situation urgency, and whether the corporation is the only actor capable of fulfilling the right, she illustrates her framework through a hypothetical scenario involving a mine-owned hospital and an injured child. Her argument fundamentally questions whether a fair and just economy can exist when only states—not the corporations benefiting from systemic inequality—bear legal responsibility for human rights.
Key Points
Main Takeaways
The Accountability Gap
Current international law treats only states as duty-bearers, giving corporations merely voluntary responsibility despite their role in perpetuating poverty.
Poverty as Rights Violation
With 1.3 billion people in poverty and 21,300 daily deaths, poverty constitutes a massive human rights crisis affecting dignity, life, and basic needs.
Structural Power Imbalances
Developing countries reliant on foreign investment cannot effectively regulate multinationals, creating a system where corporations demand rights-weakening conditions.
Circumstantial Duty Framework
The proposed legal test considers violation extent, victim vulnerability, urgency, and whether the corporation alone can fulfill the right.
Perverse Incentive Problem
Some corporations benefit from maintaining poverty through access to cheap labor, resources, and weak regulations in developing countries.
Reimagining Economic Justice
The proposal challenges assumptions about fair markets, arguing that the global economy creates severe violations requiring legal intervention.
Master Reading Comprehension
Practice with 365 curated articles and 2,400+ questions across 9 RC types.
Article Analysis
Breaking Down the Elements
Main Idea
International Law Must Impose Direct Corporate Duties
The article’s central thesis argues that international human rights law requires fundamental reform to impose direct legal obligations on multinational corporations for socio-economic rights fulfillment. Currently, the UN Guiding Principles framework treats corporations as having only voluntary responsibilities while states bear all legal duties. This creates a structural gap where powerful corporations exploit developing countries without accountability. Meyersfeld proposes a circumstantial duty framework based on four factors that would determine when corporations must legally fulfill rights like healthcare, housing, and education. This matters because poverty kills over 21,000 people daily, and the existing voluntary system fails when economically vulnerable states cannot regulate corporations that benefit from maintaining poverty conditions.
Purpose
To Advocate for Legal Reform
The author writes to persuade legal scholars, policymakers, and international law practitioners that the current framework inadequately addresses corporate complicity in structural poverty. By documenting corporations’ historical role in profiting from human rights abuses—from slavery to apartheid to contemporary exploitation—she establishes a pattern requiring systemic intervention. The hypothetical scenario of the injured child and mine hospital serves not merely to illustrate but to demonstrate the moral inadequacy of current law where a corporation could legally refuse emergency care. Her purpose extends beyond critique to propose concrete reform: a multi-factor test for determining corporate duties that balances practical concerns about universal obligations against urgent needs in specific circumstances.
Structure
Problem → Critique → Proposal → Application
The article follows a progressive argumentative structure that builds toward legal reform. It opens by establishing the scholarly disagreement about corporate duties under international law, then presents devastating poverty statistics (1.3 billion affected, 21,300 daily deaths) to frame the stakes. The piece critiques the existing UN Guiding Principles by explaining their three-pillar framework (Protect, Respect, Remedy) before demonstrating why this voluntary system fails when states lack leverage over multinationals. The proposal section introduces four specific factors for determining corporate duties, grounding abstract legal theory in practical application. The hypothetical scenario then tests the framework’s workability, showing how the factors combine to generate a clear legal answer. The conclusion returns to systemic critique, arguing that fundamental assumptions about economic fairness must be challenged.
Tone
Authoritative, Measured & Morally Urgent
The tone balances scholarly authority with moral urgency, establishing credibility through research credentials (“doing research in this area since 2006”) while maintaining passionate engagement with human suffering. Statistical evidence (21,300 daily deaths) creates emotional weight without sensationalism. The language combines technical legal terminology with accessible explanation, making complex international law concepts understandable while preserving analytical rigor. Phrases like “perverse incentive” and “power imbalance” add critical edge without becoming polemical. The hypothetical scenario introduces narrative elements that humanize abstract legal debate through the vulnerable figure of an injured child, making theoretical reform proposals feel concrete and urgent. The conclusion’s declaration that “international human rights law must address this” signals conviction while the overall measured argumentation demonstrates scholarly seriousness.
Key Terms
Vocabulary from the Article
Click each card to reveal the definition
Build your vocabulary systematically
Each article in our course includes 8-12 vocabulary words with contextual usage.
Tough Words
Challenging Vocabulary
Tap each card to flip and see the definition
Extending or operating across national boundaries; involving or concerning more than one nation, especially regarding corporations or organizations.
“Professor John Ruggie was appointed as the United Nations secretary-general’s special representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations.”
Relating to or concerned with the interaction of social and economic factors; involving both societal structures and financial conditions that affect communities.
“I argue that this is particularly true when it comes to socio-economic rights such as the rights to housing, education, food, water and healthcare.”
The action of obtaining or acquiring something, especially goods or services; in context, often refers to acquisition through questionable means.
“European banks reportedly assisted South Africa’s apartheid government to procure arms.”
Relating to the control or supervision of an activity or process through rules and restrictions; concerning governmental or institutional oversight mechanisms.
“Multinationals based in the global north tend to exploit developing countries for their cheap labour, natural resources and weak regulatory frameworks.”
Contrary to what is expected or desired; showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave unacceptably, or producing unintended harmful consequences.
“Some corporations have a perverse incentive to keep communities poor.”
Free from an obligation or liability imposed on others; not subject to a particular rule, requirement, or burden that applies generally.
“International law can no longer exempt corporations from liability for human rights violations, including those arising from poverty.”
Reading Comprehension
Test Your Understanding
5 questions covering different RC question types
1According to the article, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights currently impose legally binding obligations on corporations to respect human rights.
2According to the article, what is the primary reason the UN Guiding Principles framework fails to effectively regulate multinational corporations?
3Which sentence best expresses why the author believes corporations should have duties under international law?
4Evaluate the following statements about the author’s proposed framework for determining corporate duties:
The framework considers whether the corporation is the only actor that can fulfill the right under the specific circumstances.
The proposed duty would be conditional and limited rather than absolute and universal for all corporations.
The framework would apply only to corporations that have directly committed human rights violations, not those merely complicit or benefiting from poverty.
Select True or False for all three statements, then click “Check Answers”
5Based on the mine hospital hypothetical scenario, what can be inferred about how the author’s proposed framework differs from current international law?
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
The three pillars are Protect (state duty to regulate businesses), Respect (corporate responsibility to respect rights—voluntary, not binding), and Remedy (victims’ access to redress). This framework fails because it assumes three conditions that don’t exist in practice: states acting in citizens’ interests, voluntary corporate compliance, and effective remedial systems. Developing countries desperate for foreign investment lack leverage to impose strong regulations on powerful multinationals, who can demand favorable conditions including weakened human rights protections. Without binding legal obligations, the voluntary respect pillar becomes meaningless when economic pressure prevents states from enforcing standards.
The framework considers: (1) the extent of the violation, (2) the position or vulnerability of the victim, (3) the urgency of the situation, and (4) whether the corporation is the only actor that can fulfill the right. These factors work in combination—not every factor must be present, but their collective weight determines legal duty. The mine hospital scenario illustrates this: the child is vulnerable (age and poverty), the situation is urgent (severe injury requiring immediate care), and the mine hospital is the only nearby facility capable of providing treatment. Together, these circumstances create a legal obligation that wouldn’t exist if, for example, a fully equipped public hospital were equally accessible.
Multinationals exploit developing countries for cheap labor, natural resources, and weak regulatory frameworks that poverty-stricken nations cannot strengthen due to dependence on foreign investment. This creates what the author calls a “perverse incentive”—corporations actually benefit from communities remaining poor because poverty ensures continued access to exploitable conditions. The power imbalance means multinationals can negotiate favorable investment terms that relax laws protecting human rights. Unlike historical direct participation in abuses like slavery or apartheid, modern corporations may be “complicit” by operating within and profiting from structures that perpetuate poverty, even if they don’t directly cause specific violations.
Readlite provides curated articles with comprehensive analysis including summaries, key points, vocabulary building, and practice questions across 9 different RC question types. Our Ultimate Reading Course offers 365 articles with 2,400+ questions to systematically improve your reading comprehension skills.
This article is classified as Advanced level. It requires understanding complex international law concepts, following multi-layered arguments about structural power imbalances, and distinguishing between direct responsibility and complicity. The vocabulary includes specialized legal terminology like “transnational corporations,” “socio-economic rights,” and “regulatory frameworks.” Advanced readers must grasp not just the author’s proposal but also why current frameworks fail, how hypothetical scenarios test legal principles, and the broader implications for global economic justice. The piece demands facility with both technical legal analysis and moral argumentation about corporate accountability.
Professor John Ruggie was appointed as the UN secretary-general’s special representative on human rights and transnational corporations in 2005. He developed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which established the current international framework based on the three pillars (Protect, Respect, Remedy). His work is significant because it represents the existing consensus that the author challenges—the idea that only states have binding duties under international law while corporations have merely voluntary responsibilities. Meyersfeld’s entire argument seeks to move beyond the Ruggie framework by proposing that corporations should have direct legal obligations under certain circumstances.
The Ultimate Reading Course covers 9 RC question types: Multiple Choice, True/False, Multi-Statement T/F, Text Highlight, Fill in the Blanks, Matching, Sequencing, Error Spotting, and Short Answer. This comprehensive coverage prepares you for any reading comprehension format you might encounter.
