How Businesses Can Assess the Impacts of Their Charitable Activities on the Rights of Children and Youth

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I wasn’t sure if this was a hoax paper or not.  It is certainly  not publishable as it stands.   Considered technically and from an abstract perspective, the  paper is fluently and  confidently written. It is ostensibly  clear and methodical in the way the authors have laid out the logic and structure of an argument and an  approach to doing some research. It is quite clear in terms of spelling out its research methods. However and notwithstanding these considerations,  it is a remarkably thoughtless paper and the ‘results ‘ are high grade nonsense.  There is no serious engagement with the theory and practise of ‘human rights or any of the  critical literature on this ‘thematic’. There is a relentless and  endless conflation of prescription and description running through  every page.  Most conspicuously the research methods are odd to out it as mildly as I can. The apparent basis for the ‘findings’ of this research are two kinds of ‘data’ namely (i) thirty-eight children and youth under the age of 18 were engaged in five focus groups facilitated by the first co-author in two major Canadian cities.and (ii) individual interviews with  15 participants from three continents [sic] from various professional sectors: international non-governmental organisation representative (INGO) (n=5), consultant (n=5), 156 industry representative (n=3), and academic (n=2). There is no justification for this weird combination of a Canadian study and an international study, nor is there any justification for the small number  of the focus groups and interviews.  This paper has no merit.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for taking the time to review this paper. We appreciate your positive feedback about our writing quality and our research methods.

We understand that you believe that we have not engaged with the theory and practice of human rights. However, we respectfully disagree as there is relevant critical discussion throughout the paper especially pp. 10 to 14. We have linked the established literature from business and human rights to that from children’s rights. Our approach has moved beyond description and relies upon our identified conceptual framework of a child rights-based approach on p. 6 to advance our analysis. 

To clarify, this paper details the new data collection inspired by the earlier contributions from young participants in the previous research. We have now distinguished that the focus groups were in-person and the international interviews were conducted virtually on pp. 5-6.

Thank you for your consideration.

Reviewer 2 Report

A lot of interesting material, much of it original.

This article appears to be in two parts: the first focussed on CSR and the issue of children's rights not really appearing until page 7. The topic of charitable activity not appearing until much later in the piece despite the title. The scope is very broad and seems to range across numerous jurisdictions with little regard for whether the regulatory frameworks are different. Justification for the breadth would be useful as would an introductory paragraph signposting the intended content.  Some further thought might be given to how businesses - as legal persona - are or could be brought within state responsibility/obligations. Does it matter that UPR/UNCRC recommendations/reports are primarily aimed at states? Could businesses not also use these? Thought might also be given as to whether business engagement with charity is motivated by CSR or tax considerations (ie economic profit). Also of course many charities are themselves business entities or have corporate status. Some good discussion of the perspectives of children as rights holders/victims of rights abuses. Could have brought out a bit more the importance (and challenges) or placing children front and centre of business engagement.  Also some overlap between impact - which suggests ex post facto consequence for children, and drawing on Children/youth to inform policy and practices before anything is done. The challenges of the latter could have been brought out a little more. The conclusions could have been more robust. Why is it it important?

Author Response

Dear Peer Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments and enthusiasm for this paper. 
We are grateful for your constructive and useful feedback. 

You are correct that we have delayed our elaboration of CSR, charitable activities, and children’s rights until page 7. However, we note that children’s rights and business is explicitly introduced in the opening quotes on p. 2 and in the narrative on p. 3 and that CSR is explicitly identified on p. 4. This approach is intentional to draw in people familiar with the business and human rights discourse who may not be familiar with the links to children’s rights. We also begin to discuss the charitable activities of businesses on p. 3. Our further engagement on charitable activities is placed closer to the end of the paper as it responds to our findings. 

We agree with your comment that we have not sufficiently acknowledged the broad scope of our paper. To better contextualise our approach, we have added justification for our paper's breadth to our research methods section on p. 6 and also some justification and acknowledgement for the different regulatory frameworks on p. 5 at the end of the paper’s introduction to signpost our framing as you recommended. We have also made revisions to acknowledge that not all businesses fall within the scope of our paper, including on p. 9. 

Concerning your point in favour of some further thought about how businesses are or could be brought within state responsibility/obligations, we acknowledge the challenge at the bottom of p. 7 and p. 15. We have added some new language to the bottom of p. 7 and top of p. 8, as well as the bottom of p. 15. We note that this suggested direction already inspires much international discussion and could be the subject of a different paper. 

You are absolutely correct that the potential motivation for charitable activities may be for CSR and/or tax considerations i.e. economic profit, which supports the business case for this direction. We have addressed this important consideration on pp. 4-5.  Our paper's main argument tries to use this charitable activity as an entry point to draw businesses beyond that business case into the dialogue about how children’s rights can encourage reflection and greater commitment to young people in these activities. We have now explicitly identified the business case in the conclusion. 

Your point about children as stakeholders is already identified on p. 16 and explicitly in section 4.1.2 Engaging Young People as Stakeholders on pp. 17-21.

The point about overlap between assessments before implementation and afterwards is an important topic for CRIAs. However, due to the extensive literature on CRIAs and HRIAs more generally, we have not proposed a CRIA but identified some considerations for impact assessment. We have now acknowledged when impact assessments can take place on p. 21 in the introduction of “4.2. Facilitating Innovative Approaches to Charitable Activities”. We have already identified some challenges of engaging young people in the designated section “4.1.2 Engaging Young People as Stakeholders” including a new clarification on p. 19.
  
As recommended, we have added some further commentary to highlight the importance of this topic in the conclusion on p. 25. 

Once again, thank you for your consideration of our paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

·       The topic is interesting. There is a global debate on the effectiveness of CSR, especially the effectiveness of promoting public awareness of the rights of the service receipts and the role of empowerment. It would be good if there is a discussion on this area in parts of the literature review and discussion as well.

·       Also, there are discussions about the relationships between CSR, social innovation, and service receipts’ benefits. It is suggested to add a discussion in the parts of discussion and implication on this area.

Author Response

Dear Peer Reviewer, 

Thank you for your review of our paper.  We are grateful for your feedback.
 
Our paper intends to highlight the roles of young people who should be empowered in the CSR global debate. While we do not expand upon the terminology of empowerment in this paper, we already include discussion in a specific section “4.1.2 Engaging Young People as Stakeholders” and we specifically acknowledge the empowerment of young people on p. 19. Indeed, rights-based approaches necessitate empowerment of people to be meaningful. 

We have engaged in, and thought about your recommendation and its relevance to our work. While outside of the scope of the current scope of this paper, we agree that it would be valuable to study this relationship in a more in-depth manner in future work. 

Thank you once again for your consideration.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My  problems with this paper remain unaddressed by the author/s response.  Firstly I am still quite  unclear about the point of this paper and what kind of contribution it is making. Is this an exercise in political  theory,  human rights law, the  sociology of youth,  business studies … or what? Secondly  I 

Remsin unclear about what this paper is actually about,  or why it is posing and addressing the key research  questions. I can form no clear understanding why we would want to ask  about the relationship between ‘children’s rights’ and ‘business’ or what this has to do with the claim that many businesses are involved in ‘charitable work’ . So … why we would want to ask whether and/or to what extent ‘charitable activities from business provide an entry point for considering children’s rights? I find this a mystifying question. I say this because I take  Sheldon Wolin’s critical protocol idea seriously: Wolin says that any idea, such as ‘democracy’ or ‘participation’ or in this case ‘children’s rights’ and ‘business charitable activity’  ‘should be able to describe or prescribe a conception’ of that idea,  and then proceed to specify what ‘practices would qualify eg., as ‘children’s rights’  and ‘business charitable activity’, before pointing to actual examples’ (Wolin 2004: 601). I looked in vain for any vaguely ‘empirical’ basis for the inquiry set loose in this paper. I get it that some businesses send shoes or vaccines off to children in the Global South, but even if this is treated as ‘charity’ what sense to do we make contextually of the staggering levels of global corporate tax evasion/avoidance and taxpayer subsidies.  In Australia eg., we know that the biggest 750 corporates pay zero tax year after year while Australian taxpayer subsidies currently run at about $219 billion pa. Don’t we need some context in short to assess the meaning of ‘business charity’.  The issue of the ‘reality’ of children’s rights is even more contentious and difficult given that state actors are typically the worst perpetrators of children’s rights abuses, while states are the  agents we rely on to protect  those rights.

Given this what light if any can possibly be shed on the idea that there is some link between the ‘charitable activities of business’ and  ‘children’s rights’ or that this matters? Why assume that we can/should hypothesise a link between charitable activities and the idea these will provide ‘a useful and practical entry point for businesses to engage in a greater understanding of children’s rights and, in turn, develop strategies to support implementation efforts’? We can only expect predictably and confidently so that that the author/s will establish on the basis of their ‘research objectives, process, analysis, and results’ that we should ‘respect  children and youth and their human rights’. Well blow me down with a feather. I remain unpersuaded that the  world needs this kind of research. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1, 

Thank you once again for engaging with our paper and providing your informative feedback. 

We acknowledge that you feel that there is lack of clarity about the paper’s contribution. To respond to your question, our paper aims to engage in both childhood/youth studies and business studies. The aim of this paper is to respond to a gap in academic and social knowledge that is relevant across disciplines. As such, we acknowledge that it does not fit neatly into a particular disciplinary box, but instead proposes a novel interdisciplinary examination of children’s rights, their wellbeing, and business. 

With regard to your second point, we enunciate that this paper is rooted in children’s rights discourses that seek to further the respect and wellbeing of children and youth in society through improved awareness and understanding of children’s rights through rights-respecting participatory processes and outcomes. Historically the responsibility for protecting and implementing children’s rights have been assigned to state actors in international law. However, in recent decades, there is a growing recognition that the responsibility for human rights (including children’s rights) is much broader. As a result, it is important that a wider range of actors recognize their impact on children and youth and their human rights. Without any question, this does not take away from the necessary role of the state in the implementation of rights, as you have identified. 

Since children’s rights have been well established in the literature and in global discourses for decades, the roles of the state and other relevant sectors in implementation have been increasingly addressed in recent years including that of business. Consequently, the starting point of this paper is to build upon the established relationship between children’s rights and business as outlined by such examples from international organizations and academics identified in the various examples identified in FN #11 and #12 of our paper including: 
1) UNICEF, Save the Children, and The Global Compact, ‘Children’s Rights and Business Principles’, (2012);
2) UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, ‘General Comment No. 16, On State Obligations Regarding the Impact of Business Sector on Children’s Rights’, CRC/C/GC/16 (17 April 2013).
3) Save the Children, Global Compact, and UNICEF, ‘How Business Affects Us: Children and Young People Share Their Perspectives on How Business Impacts Their Lives and Communities’, (2012). 

You are correct that tax evasion/avoidance by business is a serious issue, which we have already acknowledged within our revised paper on p. 4. 
Businesses cannot make up for their negative impacts on society through charitable activities. Rather, they must assess the totality of their impacts. As you have mentioned, the very reality that businesses are able to wrongfully avoid taxes is indicative of the lack of power governments may have to hold them accountable for their actions. We understand that there is no easy, singular solution to correct the negative impacts of businesses. Multiple strategies are required and this paper proposes this avenue since it has not yet been identified in the literature. 

In reference to your point about the need to consider context for charitable activities, we highlight that context is essential since our argumentation is explicitly related to “within the context of global capitalism, as they are most often the entities that implement CSR activities” as we identify on p. 7. 

You ask why we would be interested in charitable activities. As we note on p. 3 of our manuscript, there is growing attention to the charitable activities of businesses. These activities are assumed to be tacitly beneficial and we argue in this paper that it is important to be critical of such assumptions as well as recognize the opportunities for supporting children’s rights.

The paper also responds to global efforts to advance human rights impact assessments in relation to business to urge attention to children's rights, which the academic literature outlines as often marginalized. This is an attempt to contribute, in a pragmatic way, to the ongoing efforts of academics, professionals, and international organizations that are seeking to improve the standing of the rights of children in connection to business. We recognize the dominant role that business plays in society, which is often conceived of as separate from the lives of children and youth, and propose an avenue for corporations to begin considering their impacts in new ways. This is true not only for the impacts that businesses have on children and youth in the area commonly known as the Global South, as you noted, but we emphasize the relevance for children and youth across all global contexts. 

We understand that you do not find merit in this topic. However, we argue that this paper builds on the growing attention being paid to business impacts in academia and civil society. As you have mentioned, businesses often remain oriented towards driving profits at the expense of their obligations to positively impact society. This paper explores an existing business practice that is meaningful to corporations through which they can expand their understanding of their impacts on children and youth, and seek to do better as we argue. As such, we believe that it will make a valuable contribution to the discourse if published. 

Thank you for your consideration.