![]() ![]() ![]() In short, the NCP tries to determine whether the company has, in fact, violated the OECD corporate social responsibility guidelines. They proceed this way because their primary goal is to determine the legitimacy of the claims that are brought. If, however, the NCP’s goal were to correct inappropriate practices or implement appropriate remedies, it might, instead, select a qualified mediator - located in the place where the infraction presumably occurred - to meet informally with the relevant parties and see what might be worked out. The more informal the interaction, the less likely the parties are to overstate their claims or react defensively. ![]() If such problem-solving fails, the NCP can always revert to its investigatory role. If you were a company accused of violating OECD guidelines, wouldn’t you prefer to meet privately with a neutral party (who would keep what you said confidential) than to have to defend yourself in a public way as an official investigation gets underway? From the standpoint of preserving your corporate image, mediation is certainly preferable. EVERYTHING VS EVERYTHING MUGEN RESOLUTION PROBLEM HOW TO. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |