Business and Human Rights : entry mode, cross-national distance and human rights violations of MNEs in Latin America

(1)

Julian Göbert

Business and Human Rights:

Entry mode, cross-national distance and human rights

violations of MNEs in Latin America

MSc. Business Administration – International Management University of Amsterdam

Name: Julian Göbert Student number: 10918795

Supervisor: Dr. Michelle Westermann-Behaylo Second reader: Francesca Ciulli Date: 21 January 2016

(2)

I

Statement of originality

This document is written by Student Julian GÖBERT who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

II

Abstract

Focusing on human rights violations committed by multinational enterprises (MNEs), this article discusses how cross-national distance affects the relationship between entry mode and human rights violations. It considers what constitutes cross-national distance and entry mode strategies towards firms and explores the reasons why human rights are a business issue. Specifically, the research examines cultural-, economic- and political-distance that moderates the relationship between equity entry mode and human rights abuses. The findings of this study indicate that lower levels of equity investment on the part of MNEs in foreign ventures correlate with increased human rights abuses. Moreover economic distance has a moderating effect on the relationship between entry mode and human rights violations. Suggestions for future research focus on other cross-national factors and firm-specific characteristics, other types of measurement of the moderators and the different characteristics of MNEs.

(4)

III

Index of tables

Table 1 Variables and sources (Source: Author) ... 35

Table 2 Descriptive statistics (Source: Author) ... 39

Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations (Source: Author)... 39

Table 4 Crosstab for the sample (Source: Author) ... 40

Table 5 Chi-square test output of the sample (Source: Author) ... 41

Table 6 Strength of association for the sample (Source: Author) ... 41

Table 7 Linear model of predictors (level of equity share and cultural distance) of human rights violations (Source: Author) ... 43

Table 8 Linear model of predictors (level of equity share and economic distance) of human rights violations (Source: Author) ... 43

Table 9 Linear model of predictors (level of equity share and political distance) of human rights violations (Source: Author) ... 44

(7)

VI

Index of figures

(8)

VII

List of symbols

𝑏 intercept

𝐶𝐷_𝑗 cultural distance of the 𝑗th host country to the 𝑢th home country

𝐶𝐼 confidence interval

𝑑𝑓 degrees of freedom

𝑒𝑑 shortest possible distance (Euclidian Distance)

𝐻o null hypothesis

𝐻_e experimental hypothesis

𝑖 cultural dimension

𝐼ij index of the 𝑖th cultural dimension of the 𝑗th host country

𝐼iu index of the 𝑖th cultural dimension of the 𝑢th home country

𝑗 host country

𝑚 moderation effect

𝑁 population size

𝑛_𝑜 number of observed values

𝑛_𝑒 number of expected values

𝑝 significance value

𝑟 correlation

𝑆𝐷 standard deviation

𝑠𝑒 standard error

𝑢 home country

𝑣_𝑗 value host country

𝑣_𝑢 value home country

𝑥 Interplay between dependent and independent variable

(9)

VIII

List of abbreviations

BHRRC Business & Human Rights Research Centre

CAAs Corporate abuse allegations

CHRD Corporations & Human Rights database

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

FDI Foreign Direct Investment

Framework Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework

GDP Gross domestic product

GP Guiding Principles

ILO International Labor Organization

JVs Joint Ventures

KSI Kogut & Singh Index

LOF Liability of Foreignness

MNEs Multinational Enterprises

mies minority equity shares

maes majority equity shares

NGOs Non-governmental organizations

UDHR The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UNO United Nations Organizations

vhr violates human rights

(10)

1

1 Introduction

“To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity” (Mohin, 1990). It is more than two decades since Nelson Mandela spoke of the importance of respecting human rights – and they are still important today (Blanton & Blanton, 2006). Literature shows that businesses are often involved in human rights violations (Ruggie, 2013). For example at the turn of millennium, Coca Cola frightened employees in a bottling plant in Columbia with right-wing death squads (Aronson, 2003). For the protection of humans from those human rights violations and for the engagement of corporations in human rights due diligence as a means of fulfilling their responsibilities to respect human rights, institutions have developed several international guidelines, for instance, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948), The United Nations “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” (UNHCR, 2011) or the Europe Union Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategy (Ruggie, 2013). These guidelines provide principles for all human beings all over the world to respect and protect human rights (Ruggie, 2013). But variations exist as to what extent international human rights standards apply in different countries, and multinational enterprises (MNEs) are likely to be subject to different, sometimes conflicting standards in their countries of operation (Ruggie, 2013).

This leads to challenges for corporates leadership to manage their global value chain with respect to the compliance of human rights standards (Ruggie, 2013). But research thus far has failed to investigate the impact of intrafirm characteristics (e.g. mode of entry into the host country or cross-national distance from the host country) on human rights violations committed by MNEs (Giuliani & Macchi, 2014). Therefore the research gap for this study is to present broader patterns and correlations of alleged firms’ abuses so as to enlarge the understanding and to evaluate these interactions in order to work out possible action abilities for the major stakeholder groups involved (governments, businesses and civil society)

(11)

2

(Ruggie, 2013). Hence it is important to fill this research gap in order to provide new ways of thinking and problem-solving with respect to human rights abuses committed by MNEs (Ruggie, 2013).

The academic interest regarding the impact of MNEs on human rights violations in host countries has grown in recent years (Giuliani & Macchi, 2014). Scholars have begun to investigate underlying risk factors and results of human rights violations by firms (Hamann et al., 2009; Schrempf, 2011; Dhir, 2012). These risk factors and results of human rights violations by firms can be analyzed on two levels: The micro level (e.g. individual firms and industries) and macro level (whole country’s economy and society) (Guiliani & Macchi, 2014). This research focuses on the interplay of both levels. With respect to the micro level two industries (natural resources and textile and apparel) and on the macro level specific countries (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Peru) of one continent (Latin America) will be analyzed. This thesis evaluates only human rights violations in countries of Latin America for several reasons: One the one hand, emerging countries represent a great opportunity for investments by MNEs due to participation on higher gross domestic product (GDP) growth compared to developed countries (Pablo, 2009). On the other hand, up until recently, Latin American states were governed by autocratic regimes whereas nowadays the governments are elected which most comply with fundamental international human rights norms (Lutz & Sikkink, 2000). Latin American countries undertook fundamental institutional reforms which are another reason why research within Latin America is relevant (Van Cott, 2000). The industries mentioned above will be evaluated because these are the main industries in Latin America (National Geographic, 2015). Furthermore this master thesis will count specific human rights violations from 2000 to the present. Analyzing and understanding human rights abuses is important because these violations affect people directly and influence negatively the corporate reputation which results in a diminished brand name (Santoro, 2003). Moreover

(12)

3

this study will name the entry mode choices of the MNEs and assign them to a frequency distribution in order to acquire a greater understanding of the impact of entry mode choices on human rights violations. Furthermore, this master thesis will calculate particular cross-national distances between home and host country. The consideration and understanding of cross-national distances are important because they affect MNEs’ strategies with respect to the costs of doing business abroad (Eden & Miller, 2004). These costs result in increasing risks with respect to their investments abroad (Kogut & Singh, 1988; Hennart & Larimo, 1998). The evaluations of these influences are important in order to understand the interplay between cross-national distances and human rights abuses.

The contributions of this master thesis will be the evaluation of the connection between human rights violations and firms’ strategic choices when they enter foreign markets. What is the role of cross-national distance, entry mode choice and human rights violations when ventures do business abroad? The outcomes of this work will broaden and deepen the knowledge base of the challenges with respect to human rights. This understanding can be used by managers (e.g. by using a different mode of entry) and institutions (e.g. to reconsider rules and laws which result in penalties) to prevent human rights abuses in future. Therefore the research question stems from the reasons mentioned above:

How does cultural, political and economic distance from the host country and mode of entry into the host country affect human rights violations in Latin America?

Beginning with the abstract, the introduction of this master’s thesis will explain why this investigation is interesting and what the research gap is about. Afterwards, the literature review will summarize the current status of research, before the methodology is explained. Subsequently the analysis will show the results of the calculations. Last but not least the

(13)

4

discussion will evaluate and classify the findings, will give limitations and recommendations for further research and will reveal possible action abilities of the results of this master’s thesis. Ultimately the conclusion will finish this thesis.

(14)

5

2 Literature Review

The first part of this section reviews the literature on cross-national distance, mode of entry and human rights. Additionally, it explains why human rights are a business issue.

2.1 Cross-national distance

Cross-national distance is a core concept in the spectrum of management and describes the distance of a specific factor between home and host country (Berry et al., 2010). These factors are also named as dimensions (e.g. economic, political or cultural) (Berry et al., 2010). The comprehension of the concept and its various dimensions is important for MNEs, because characteristics of countries are never homogenous to each other (Ghemawat, 2001). This difference influences the costs and risks of MNEs when they do business in countries abroad (Ghemawat, 2001). Ghemawat (2001) argues that these costs and risks result mostly from barriers created by distance. These barriers can be for instance unfamiliarity, relational and discriminatory hazards by the government over those faced by the local firms in the host country (Eden & Miller, 2004). Businesses should care about this because of the effects of distance: Companies have difficulties functioning in foreign countries since business norms differ from those at home. The idea behind the distance literature is that these differences lead to problems for a company, because they need to figure out how things work there. This increases the liabilities of foreignness (LOF), increases the strangeness of the new environment and presents challenges for the company simply because it is different. These are disadvantages for MNEs because they lead to increasing costs and risks for the MNEs (Eden & Miller, 2004). These costs of doing business abroad which result in a competitive disadvantage for the MNEs are referred to as LOF (Sethi & Judge, 2009; Rugman et al., 2011). LOF increases with the distance between the home and host country (Hymer, 1976). Hence studies about cross-national distances are crucially based on managers’ perception to minimize the perceived costs associated with LOF and subsequent management of the

(15)

6

affiliate (Kogut & Singh, 1988). A lack of distance means that MNEs understand better what it takes to operate in that host country environment because it is similar to home. The same kinds of strategies will work, the same kinds of expectations will probably be there: what they are supposed to do, which additional social responsibilities they are expected to think about.

As already mentioned above, this study will use cultural, economic and political distance in order to fill the research gap.

2.1.1 Cultural distance

Hofstede (2001) defines culture as “collective programming of the mind; it manifests itself not only in values, but in more superficial ways: in symbols, heroes, and rituals” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 1). To distinguish people from each other, Hofstede (2001) separates the mental programming of the mind into three levels: the universal level, the collective level and the individual level. The universal level is most common and shared by almost all people (e.g. laughing or weeping). The collective level is shared with some but not all humankind. People belong to a group or other category but different to other groups and categories (e.g. language). The most unique level is the individual level. No two people are exactly programmed equally, not even identical twins (Hofstede, 2001). This level of individual personality has a wide range of different behaviors within the same collective level (Hofstede, 2001). This classification of behaviors of the various existing cultures is one reason for the challenging development of a suitable cultural distance framework (Smith et al., 2002). Moreover owing to the definition of culture, the rather small amount of cultures sampled and the defining and the classifying of behaviors of the various existing cultures make it difficult to develop a proper cultural distance model (Smith et al., 2002).

The development of such a model is important in order to understand cultural discrepancies. For instance firms face disadvantages when they decide to start operations in a

(16)

7

foreign country with a different culture in comparison to their home country. They are not used to the different cultural environment and its characteristics. This can lead for example to non-successful negotiations with local partners because of a lack of understanding of the cultural values. Following this, firms need to learn how to manage those circumstances to be able to operate successfully in culturally different countries (Berry et al., 2010).

In order to understand different cultural circumstances, scientists have developed different frameworks to be able to calculate cultural distance. The most frequently used approach for measurements of cultural distance is based on Geert Hofstede’s scientific observations regarding cultural differences between countries (Berry et al., 2010). In a large-scale study with 117,000 responses, Hofstede (2001) developed a model with four

dimensions of national culture (power distance, uncertainty avoidance,

individualism/collectivism, and masculinity/femininity) and integrated these dimensions with earlier theoretical frameworks and empirical data about countries (Bhagat, 2002). The power distance is the extent to which less powerful members of organizations (e.g. firms) and institutions (e.g. family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally (Hofstede, 1994). Hofstede (2001) argues that inequality of power is inevitable and functional inside firms with respect to the boss-subordinate relationships. The power distance scores tend to be high in regions such as Latin America, Asia and Africa, whereby in Germanic countries the power distance score tends to be low (Hofstede, 1994). This essentially means that countries in Latin America have a higher acceptance of unequally distributed power in comparison to Germanic countries. Key differences between low and high power distance societies become clear for instance in the family: In countries with low power distance, children are expected to enjoy leisure, while in countries with high power distance children should work hard even if this is a burden (Hofstede, 2001). The second dimension of Hofstede’s (2001) national culture is uncertainty avoidance. It deals with a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and

(17)

8

ambiguity. Uncertainty about the future is a basic fact of human life and the issue of uncertainty avoidance is whether the society should try to control future or just let it happen (Hofstede, 2015). Uncertainty avoidance should not be confused with risk avoidance (Hofstede, 2001). This means that uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibilities of unstructured situations (e.g. unknown or surprising situations) by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures (Hofstede, 1994). Whereas uncertainty accepting cultures try to have as few rules as possible and are more tolerant of opinions different from what they are used to. German speaking countries, Latin countries and Japan have high uncertainty avoidance scores, whereas Anglo, Nordic and Chinese cultures have a lower uncertainty avoidance score (Hofstede, 1994). Key differences become clear in terms of values and other psychological characteristics related to uncertainty avoidance: People from countries with high uncertainty avoidance tend to have a higher work stress, have widely dispersed feelings of happiness and are more resistant to changes (Hofstede, 2001). Whereas people from countries with low uncertainty avoidance tend to have a lower work stress, share their feelings of happiness and are less resistant to changes (Hofstede, 2001). The third of four dimensions of Hofstede’s (2001) national culture is individualism as opposed to collectivism. He defines individualism as “a preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of only themselves and their immediate families” (Hofstede, 2015). This means that individualism versus the opposite (collectivism) is the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups (Hofstede, 1994). Hofstede (2001) argues that Tönnie’s distinction between Gemeinschaft (community) (low individualism, high collectivism) and Gesellschaft (society) (high individualism, low collectivism) is probably the best known distinction associated within this dimension (Tönnies & Harris, 2001). This implies that in countries with higher individualism respectively lower collectivism score people are stronger integrated into a society than into a community. They are looking only

(18)

9

after themselves and their immediate family but not to members of a particular in-group (Hofstede, 2015). In countries with lower individualism and a higher collectivism score, people are integrated into a tightly-knit social framework in which individuals look after members in a particular in-group and protect them in unquestioning loyalty (Hofstede, 1994). Countries such as the United States, Australia, Great Britain or the Netherlands have high individualism scores, whereas countries like Colombia or Peru have low individualism scores (Hofstede, 2001). Examples of differences between countries with high individualism and high collectivism scores become visible for instance relating to the attitude (of their inhabitants) to life: In countries with high individualism/low collectivism scores, salary is more important than interesting work. Moreover inhabitants of countries with high individualism/low collectivism scores have a stronger preference for more hedonistic lifestyles rather than an ascetic one (Hofstede, 2001). The fourth dimension of national culture is masculinity, as opposed to femininity. This dimension refers to the traditional distribution of gender roles: Males are more concerned with economic and other achievements while females tend to be more concerned about taking care of people or relationships (Hofstede, 2001). This means that in countries with a higher masculinity and lower femininity scores, money and material possessions are important and the people tend to have higher job stress. Countries like Japan, Germany and Colombia have high masculinity scores, whereas countries like the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden have low masculinity scores. Differences between countries with low and high masculinity scores are for instance the attitude of their inhabitants towards life: People in countries with low masculinity score work in order to live, whereas people in countries with high masculinity live in order to work. Hofstede (2001) uses these four dimensions in order to measure cultural differences between countries. He has also developed a fifth dimension (long- versus short-term orientation), which will not be elaborated upon here because the data is independent of his major study

(19)

10

about culture and is not part of this paper (Hofstede, 2001). Moreover several scholars have criticized Hofstede for his study (Shenkar, 2001; Drogendijk & Slangen, 2006). These criticisms are included below in this thesis.

2.1.2 Economic distance

Countries differ not only in cultural aspects; they differ also in terms of their level of economic development (Tsang & Yip, 2007). The economic development of a country describes the progress of an economy in a country in terms of productivity and competitiveness (Porter, 2000b). This economic development seems to be important in order to achieve sustainable progress in a nation’s standard of living (Porter, 2000b). Ghemawat (2001) labeled different levels of economic development between countries “economic distance” (Tsang & Yip, 2007). Economic distance originates due to differences in consumer incomes and differences of costs and quality of natural, financial and human resources, infrastructure, intermediate inputs and knowledge (Ghemawat, 2001). These attributes of a country correlate significantly with consumer purchasing power and preferences, macroeconomic stability and the openness of the economy to external influences (Berry et al., 2010). This means that the level of economic development within a country characterizes the country as a whole and influences the survival and performance of firms accordingly (Tsang & Yip, 2007). Following this, companies from countries with the same economic development (lack of economic distance) know the economic environment and do not need to adjust their strategies and business models to new economic circumstances. Whereas firms from countries with a different economic development (large economic distance) have a disadvantage because they are not used for instance to the fact that consumers have a different consumer power. This becomes a challenge for them to study how to deal with those circumstances (Ghemawat, 2001; Berry et al., 2010). Moreover economic distance leads to differences in factor costs (e.g. wages) and technological capabilities, which in turn affects

(20)

11

foreign direct investments (FDI) decisions and the possibility to gain economic arbitrage due to the exploitation of costs and price differences between markets (Ghemawat, 2001; Tsang & Yip, 2007).

2.1.3 Political distance

Furthermore institutional literature shows that countries differ also in terms of their political environment and political systems (e.g. democratic and autocratic systems) (Whitley, 2000; Berry et al., 2010). Ghemawat (2001) labeled political differences between countries “political distance”. This distance arises due to political hostility, government policies, institutional weakness, absence of colonial ties and the absence of shared monetary or political association (Ghemawat, 2001). But political distance matters in terms of economic trade: Research shows that a common polity between countries (close political distance) increases international trade by more than 300% (Ghemawat, 2001; Frankel & Rose, 2002). This means that MNEs conduct more business with each other. A reason for this is that a company that knows how to work in an environment with for instance strong institutions is likely to struggle to deal in an economy without or weak institutions because they are not used to consider this. They are used to the institutions being there, the companies rely on them and if companies want to get things done, they simply follow the proper bureaucratic channels safe in the knowledge that the institutions work. The same applies to companies from weak institutional environments: If they enter countries with a strong institutional environment, they have a disadvantage because they are not used to institutions being strong and it becomes a challenge for them to learn how to manage that environment. This implies that analyzing political distance matters: MNEs need to know political circumstances in order to be capable to deal successfully with specific environmental requirements, risks and opportunities (Zaheer & Zaheer, 1997; Henisz & Delios, 2001; Werner, 2002; Rugman & Verbeke, 2004; Berry et al., 2010).

(21)

12

2.2 Mode of entry

The mode of entry describes how MNEs enter foreign markets (Hill et al., 1990). The motivations of firms for entering markets abroad are expectations of specific benefits (Knight, 2007). These benefits include emerging opportunities because of risk spreading due to diversification (Porter et al., 1996), cost reduction due to lower transaction and non-transaction costs (Dunning, 1988, 1998; Pan & Tse, 2000), the achievement of first-mover advantages (e.g. technology leadership, preemption of scarce assets and/or switching costs and buyer choice under uncertainty) (Lieberman & Montgomery, 1988) and/or of benefits by knowledge spillovers due to agglomeration effects (Mariotti et al., 2010). According to this, MNEs need to decide what kind of entry mode they use in order to organize their foreign business activities (Hill et al., 1990). There are different entry mode options: exports, contractual agreements, joint ventures (JVs) and wholly-owned subsidiaries (WOS) (Kogut, 1988, Peng & Meyer, 2011). Exports are goods produced in one country which are shipped into another country in order to sell or trade them (Wagner, 2015). Contractual agreements are for instance licensing or franchising contracts where two or more parties make an arrangement with each other (Peng & Meyer, 2011). However contractual agreements differ from a JV: JVs are strategic alliances with different dispersions of shared control of the investors (e.g. minority JV, 50/50 JV or majority JV) (Kogut, 1988). WOS are 100 percent owned by a MNE, that means that the MNE has full control and responsibility for its subsidiary (Pan & Tse, 2000).

The international management literature developed three schools of thought in order to explain the choice of entry modes (Pan & Tse, 2000). The first school of thought (gradual incremental involvement) views businesses abroad as risky because of the differences in terms of culture, politics and business systems the MNE must adapt to (Johanson & Valne, 1977, 1990). This conceptual model views the entry mode as a continuum in terms of

(22)

13

increasing resource engagement, level of risk, control and profit potential from export to WOS and is also known as the Uppsala model (Chu & Anderson, 1992; Pan & Tse, 2000; Forsgren, 2002). The second school of thought (transaction costs) is based on the theory that MNEs internalize those activities they can perform at lower costs (Williamson, 1981; Pan & Tse, 2000). This transaction costs theory is based on the assumption that MNEs make isolated decisions based on decision-specific transaction costs considerations (Erramilli & Rao, 1993). These costs are all costs which are associated in the value-added chain (Pan & Tse, 2000). The third school of thought emphasizes the importance of location-specific factors in order to explain the choice of entry modes. These conditions are based on Dunning’s ownership, location, and internationalization (OLI) framework (Dunning, 2000). His eclectic paradigm incorporates various strands of international business theory and emphasizes that country-specific factors become more important because they have a bigger impact on non-production costs (e.g. transaction costs due to host country risks and home-host trade or political relationships) (Pan & Tse, 2000).

Based on the schools of thought mentioned above, entry modes can be modelled in two ways (Pan & Tse, 2000): First, the entry mode as a continuum of rising levels of resource engagement, risk exposure, control and profit from export to WOS (Chu & Anderson, 1992). This means that entering a foreign market by export is associated with low levels of resource commitment and business risks, and provides greater flexibility for managerial actions. Internationalization theory argues that ventures with little or no international experience use exports in order to make the most of their attributes. But using exports as mode of entry means also less control and possible profits for the MNE in comparison to doing business abroad with a WOS (Pan & Tse, 2000; Leonidou et al., 2007; Gao et al., 2010; Rugman et al., 2011). The second possibility for modelling entry modes is to set an entry mode as a baseline in order to compare it to other modes (Buckley & Casson, 1998).

(23)

14

In order to conceptualize the schools of thoughts mentioned above in their own model, Pan & Tse (2000) underline the bounded rationality of decision makers (e.g. managers). Bounded rationality is a concept about strategic decision making which underlines the limitations of human beings, in other words, decision-makers and their ability to make perfect decisions (Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992). These limitations are based on cognitive limitations when it comes to accessing and using information, the limitation of minds and the amount of time to make a decision (Eisanhardt & Zbaracki, 1992). In other words, human beings are mostly not able to make perfect rational decisions because of the high wealth of information (Kahneman, 2011). Moreover Pan & Tse (2000) underline the dramatic differences among entry modes and criteria of choice at each level. Due to these assumptions, Pan & Tse (2000) argue that the choice of entry mode can be best demonstrated from a simplified hierarchical perspective (Kumar & Subramanian, 1997). This clear structure makes it possible for decision makers to consider a small number of specific factors at each level of the hierarchy (Pan & Tse, 2000). The first level of this hierarchical perspective is the distinction between non-equity based and equity based modes. The second level contains the differentiation between different entry modes within the first level. The third level of the hierarchical perspective divides different kinds of entry modes within the second level (Pan & Tse, 2000). The non-equity based modes of entry include exports (direct exports, indirect exports) and contractual agreements (licensing/franchising, turnkey projects, research & development contracts and co-marketing) (Pan & Tse, 2000). Owing to the fact that getting proper and complete data about non-equity based modes of entry is not possible (e.g. because contractual agreements provide firm-specific advantages) (Narula & Hagedoorn, 1999), this paper does not elaborate on the analyses of the characteristics of non-equity based modes.

The equity based modes of entry include equity JVs and WOS. The main distinction between both entry modes is the matter of equity control (Yiu & Makino, 2002). MNEs keep

(24)

15

full ownership of a WOS through an acquisition or a so-called “greenfield” investment (Pan & Tse, 2000). An acquisition is an investment, whereby a firm buys all of the target firms ownership stakes (Brouthers, 2007). “Greenfield” investment means that a firm uses FDI to build new factories and/or stores in the host country (Brouthers & Hennart, 2007). As already mentioned above, JVs are strategic alliances. Their special feature is the varying dispersion of shares on a distinctive level for each joint venture partner (Henisz, 2000). This results in different distributions of power among stockholders regarding strategic decisions and profits but also responsibilities and (transaction-) risks and control (Henisz, 2000; Yiu & Makino, 2002). A venture partner who owns the minority in a JV has less power than the investor who owns the majority of the JV (Pan & Tse, 2000). This means that a minority owner of a JV has less decision rights and therefore less control within the JV. The minority owner has also less responsibilities and (transaction-) risks but has in return lower demands in terms of profits. This distinguishes JVs from WOS. Due to the possibility of fixed and specified contracts between partners, a JV differs significantly from WOS in resource commitment, risk, return, control and other characteristics (Pan & Tse, 2000). As already mentioned above on the basis of exports, entering a foreign market by using a JV means lower levels of resource commitment, business risks but also less control and possible profits for the MNE in comparison to enter a foreign market with a WOS. This is closely linked to the characteristic of WOS: They are owned by one firm or investor who carries the whole responsibility (and has therefore a higher level of resource commitment and business risks but also more control and full claims of profits) (Chu & Anderson, 1992, Pan & Tse, 2000; Leonidou et al., 2007;

Gao et al., 2010; Rugman et al., 2011).

2.3 Human rights as a business issue

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 represents the first global expression of human rights after the dreadful experiences of the Second World War (UDHR,

(25)

16

2015). Human rights are the “best accepted and most widely promulgated candidates for universal norms” (Donaldson & Dunfee, 1994). Therefore several forms of human rights exist: Labor rights (especially workplace safety, health and non-discrimination), economic, social and cultural rights (Hamann et al., 2009) and also the protection of the environment belongs to human rights (Arkani & Theobald, 2005).

Human rights violations occur when firms discriminate against certain groups of employees, fail to offer a safe and healthy working environment, when they prohibit independent trade unions (including the right of collective negotiations), restrain the distribution of appropriate technology and intangible property, and dispose toxic wastes which effect the environment (Weissbrodt & Kruger, 2003). Scholars stress that these violations mostly affect developing countries and particularly children, minorities and women who work in unsafe and low-paid production jobs (Weissbrodt & Kruger, 2003).

International research literature shows that human rights abuses are committed not only by states and individuals, but also by MNEs (Bachmann, 2010). Therefore human rights become a more and more important business issue (Sikkink, 1993; Ruggie, 2013; Bernardi, 2015). Reasons for this effect are: The increased international market integration of goods, capital and labor (globalization) (Hillemanns, 2003, Ruggie, 2013), the improved availability of information about human rights and human rights violations (Ratner, 2001), and the increased effort to set a global standard of human rights by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like the United Nations Organizations (UNO) (Ruggie, 2011). Furthermore, human rights are strongly linked to international and national law (Hamann et al., 2009). But a problem is that whilst, MNEs operate as globally integrated entities, they are not subject to any single regulator (Ruggie, 2013). MNEs are subject to the jurisdiction in which they operate (Ruggie, 2013). Ruggie (2013) points out that MNEs become the central focus of business and human rights concerns because their range and influence expand beyond the

(26)

17

reach of effective public government systems. This creates non-restrictive environments for unfair acts by firms without the threat of suitable sanctions and reparations (Ruggie, 2013). Simultaneously, standards for protecting people and the environment from the adverse effects to these developments did not keep pace (Ruggie, 2013). Therefore the current challenge is to frame their essential attributes in a way that describes the intricacies and dynamics of market integration and to provide institutions, individuals and MNEs proper guidelines with respect to the protection of human rights (Ruggie, 2008).

The Human Rights Council (formerly the United Nations Commission on Human Rights) has taken on the task of developing those guidelines. The Human Rights Council is an international part within the United Nations system and is responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights all over the world (OHCHR, 2015). They assigned the task of developing those guidelines to the Berthold Beitz Professor in Human Rights and International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, John Ruggie (Harvard, 2015). Ruggie (2008, 2013) developed the Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework (Framework) and the Guiding Principles (GPs) for its implementation. The Framework and the GPs have the aim to name, to define and to conceptualize elements for global guidelines (Ruggie, 2013). The first element of the Framework is the duty of the government to protect human rights within its territory or jurisdiction against violations by non-state actors (e.g. corporations). That means that countries have to do anything to protect human rights against such a violation: Prevent, investigate and punish the abuse and also to offer access to compensation (Ruggie, 2008; Sethi et al., 2011). The second element is the responsibility of firms to respect human rights. This means that corporations are supposed to appreciate the rights of others and to do no harm. But most companies don’t know if they respect all human rights (Ruggie, 2008). Because of this, Ruggie (2011, 2013) argues that firms must conduct human rights due diligence to ensure that they are respecting human

(27)

18

rights. This is a process of reasonable steps taken by a corporation in order to satisfy international minimum standards for human rights (Ruggie, 2013). These steps are taken in the context of their business activities and the connections within these business activities (Ruggie, 2008). The third element is the access to remedy: States need to be capable of taking steps to examine, punish, and redress venture-related violation of the rights of the individuals within their territory and/or legal system. These steps can be taken by administrative, legislative, judicial, or other means. Countries often refer to the presence of their criminal and civil law system in order to show that they are fulfilling their international obligations in this respect. But some states create legal and practical barriers to get access to formal judicial institutions. This leads to some home states fearing to disadvantage “their” firms and host countries often resist it on the principle of non-intervention in their domestic affairs (Ruggie, 2008). Ruggie (2008) points out that especially those systems often are the weakest where they are most needed and the access is difficult (Ruggie, 2008). Ruggie (2008) offered possible solutions for this problem: The supervision of particular standards (e.g. health and safety) by non-judicial agencies, publicly funded mediation services (e.g. The Civil Mediation Council), national human rights institutions (e.g. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative) (Smith, 2006) and/or the control by mechanisms such as the OECD’s National Contact Points. In summary, states must protect, companies must respect and those who are harmed by human rights abuses must have redress (Ruggie, 2013).

Additionally, GPs offer appropriate steps and acts required for the realization of the Framework. These steps are for instance that states should provide effective guidance to business enterprises on how to respect human rights throughout their operations (Ruggie, 2013). All in all, the establishment of the Framework and GPs are a first attempt to point out necessary directives for the compliance of MNEs and the punishment by authorities when MNEs fail to comply (Ratner, 2001).

(28)

19

This raises the question to which extent MNEs are responsible for the compliance of human rights and if the responsibilities need to be extended. Some MNEs developed policies and practices to follow responsible business conduct, what became known as CSR (Ruggie, 2013).

But there are also arguments for the compliance and extension of human rights obligations to firms. In terms of human rights violations in emerging countries, research shows that respecting human rights makes the respective countries more attractive for FDI (Blanton & Blanton, 2007). The authors explain this effect with the decreased corporate weakness due to lose reputation due to published human rights violations, the facilitation to develop a setting where high-skilled labor can emerge and with reduced risk to FDI due to political stability and predictability within a host country (Blanton & Blanton, 2007). Moreover MNEs have a social responsibility in order to create peace, prosperity and progress (ILO, 2015a). They can use their negotiation power to incorporate their codes of conduct into contracts. For example in the textile and apparel industry, MNEs can require that their suppliers meet ethical standards.

Moreover Ruggie (2008) concludes that corporations should bear three sets of factors concerning human rights in mind when they do business across national borders: The first factor underlines the characteristics of the country in which a firm is operating to emphasize particular human rights challenges which can arise. Another factor is the impact of their activities on human rights. This depends on the firms’ capacity as producers, service providers, employers and neighbors (Ruggie, 2008). The third factor is how the business of an international corporation affects human rights in terms of all involved partners in the supply chain. All in all, the impact of business on human rights depends on the particular circumstances (Ruggie, 2008).

(29)

20

Therefore corporations must have human rights in mind when developing strategy and firm structure which affect such outcomes (Weissbrodt & Kruger, 2003). Particularly MNEs have to bear this in mind because they are often active in the most dynamic industrial sectors of economies in the host country (Weissbrodt & Kruger, 2003). These sectors are for instance extractive industries, telecommunications, information technology, electronic consumer goods, footwear and apparel, transport, banking and finance, insurance and securities trading. Weissbrodt & Kruger (2003) emphasize that those MNEs bring new jobs, technology and capital due to FDI but can also be responsible for the commitment of human rights abuses. Some of these MNEs respect international human rights; however some of these MNEs do not respect minimum international human rights standards (Weissbrodt & Kruger, 2003). This has a direct or indirect relationship to a firm’s structure, performance outcomes, strategy and leads to particular human rights violations (Weissbrodt & Kruger, 2003).

2.3.1 Labor rights as human rights

Bonded labor, sweatshop conditions or seven-year-old child workers are examples for egregious human rights violations (Ruggie, 2013). These labor rights violations have an impact on the whole of civil society (Ruggie, 2013, ILO, 2015b). Labor rights can be defined as the set of rights that humans have by virtue of their status as employees (Mundlak, 2007). In order to maximize their sales profits, MNEs search for cheap labor to produce at the lowest costs available (Liubicic, 1998). This can result in “sweatshop” labor practices including unfair and low salaries, unreasonable working hours (up to 18 hours per day), unsafe working conditions and mental and physical abuses by line manager (Ayoub, 1998). This systematically growing exploitation of weak labor pools due to differences in labor rights and standards among countries make human and labor rights abuses an important theme (Compa, 1993). Moreover this emphasizes the need for strong and universal labor rights in order to close the gap which motivates international actors to trade and invest in these countries

(30)

21

(Compa, 1993). But the implementation of enforceable, strong and universal labor rights is complicated because of several reasons. One reason is based on macroeconomic instability and political risks in developing countries due to weak institutional frameworks (Meyer et al., 2009; MIGA, 2013). Weak institutional frameworks are defined as institutions which fail to guarantee effective markets or even weaken markets (e.g. due to corruption) (Meyer et al., 2009). Another reason is the lack of generalities or guidelines regarding labor rights (Ruggie, 2008). However, the definition of the scope of labor rights and which labor rights should be declared as universal labor rights is a highly controversial matter (Kolben, 2009). For this reason, the International Labor Organization (ILO) drew up the Fundamental Declaration on Principles and Rights at Work (Fundamental Declaration) (ILO, 2015b). The Fundamental Declaration is an attempt to stop the “race to the bottom” concerning labor rights (Kolben, 2009). This means in this context the socio-economic phenomenon of the deregulation of the business environment to set lower standards which results in worse working conditions (Mosley & Uno, 2007). The aim of the Fundamental Declaration is to achieve a consensus, morally, politically, and legally, on what constitutes to generally accepted labor rights (Kolben, 2009). The Fundamental Declaration is divided into four categories of core and unquestionable labor rights: the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor, the effective abolition of child labor, the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and the occupation and freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining (ILO, 2015b). Almost all countries in the world (96%) are ILO members and therefore bounded to the compliance and control of the Fundamental Declaration (Kolben, 2009; ILO, 2015c).

2.3.2 Environmental abuses as human rights

As distinguished from labor rights, environmental abuses affect human beings indirectly. There are many examples in which environmental disasters committed by corporations have

(31)

22

resulted in deaths and health problems affecting several generations of local people (Wettstein, 2009; Zerk, 2010; Giuliani & Macchi, 2014). But scholars are divided in terms of the impact of MNEs on environment abuses (Christmann, 2004; Giuliani & Macchi, 2014). On the one hand scholars argue that MNEs exploit cross-national differences with respect to environmental regulations in order to use lax regulations to run dirty operations in these countries (Vernon, 1998; Christmann, 2004). On the other hand research shows that some MNEs increase their efforts to protect the environment and to reduce their impact on it (Christmann & Taylor, 2001). However few scholars refer to “environmental justice” with respect to the consequences of environmental abuses (Adeola, 2001).

The different thoughts regarding cross-national distance, mode of entry and human rights as a business issue leads to the theoretical framework.

(32)

23

3 Theoretical Framework

Many MNEs all over the world are accused of human rights violations. Firms like Adidas or Benetton have their headquarters in countries (Germany and Italy respectively) with strong labor rights and where the compliance of human rights is assumed and where an institutional environment exists for punishing companies for breaking international law (Henisz, 2000). But even these MNEs are blamed for a variety of abuses like labor rights violations, environmental abuses and exploitation of indigenous land (Hale, 2012). Moreover especially in the natural resources industry many human rights problems exist in Latin America (CHRD, 2015). But MNEs follow different strategies regarding their entry mode decision when they decide to enter foreign markets in Latin America. Some MNEs use JVs to internationalize their businesses; others set a WOS in the foreign country for their operations (Quer et al., 2007). Beyond that these MNEs are located in different countries with a different cultural, political and economic background. To sum up, MNEs which are blamed for human rights violations have a different background characterized by their home country and they use different equity entry mode strategies to do business abroad. In order to find out the impact of these differences, the question arises as to how cultural, economic and political distances moderate the interplay of equity entry mode choice and human rights violations. To answer this question, the following sections explain the interplay between human rights and entry mode and how the differences of each type of distance are related to human rights.

3.1 Human rights and entry mode

MNEs are mainly founded in order to generate economic returns for their shareholders and not to solve social problems (Friedman, 1970; Muchlinski, 2001). Optimizing themselves instead of the general society is the duty of corporations (Devinney, 2009). For instance regarding cost reduction or preemption of scarce assets: Low-wage or rich in natural resources countries are attractive for MNEs in order to manufacture labor-intensive products

(33)

24

for costs savings or to get access to scarce assets. But sometimes MNEs are willing to break international law in order to get access to scarce assets with help of illegal activities (e.g. oil and gas industries) (Chen, 2008). Getting access to these natural resources means using FDI to enter the market. Using majority equity share investment implies in this context that the MNEs receive more profits, more decision rights but also more risks with respect to the unfamiliarity or restrictions of the local market (LOF) (Henisz, 2000; Oetzel & Doh, 2009). Following this assumption, MNEs need to find a local partner by minority or majority equity share investment to get access to the local market and to overcome the LOF (Meyer et al., 2009; Oetzel & Doh, 2009). This raises the question of a potential correlation between level of equity investment and human rights violations. Analyzing the characteristics of JV mentioned above, Ruggie (2013) points out that shared control over operations within a corporation can lead to human rights violations. Reasons for this can be for instance different perspectives on how to achieve targets (e.g. cost savings due to very low wages), a lack of knowledge by the MNE about all business activities of the local partner and/or the given condition that managers and other employees in JVs often come from diverse backgrounds and corporate cultures (IHRB, 2012). Moreover case studies indicate that local partners in Latin America commit human rights violations (CHRD, 2015). Following this, a lack of control within the JV may lead to human rights violations. Beyond that, the degree of control is driven by the share of equity investment a MNE has in a foreign venture (Meyer et al, 2009). Consequently, less control and decision rights (due to a minority equity investment) and the evidence that local partners commit human rights violations leads to the assumption that MNEs with a minority level of equity investment are more likely to be guilty of a human rights violation in comparison to firms with a majority level of equity investment. This leads to the fist first Hypothesis (H1):

(34)

25

(H1): The lower the level of equity investment a MNE has in a foreign venture, the more likely the firm will be accused of a human rights violation.

Owing to the fact that entry mode choices are driven by cross-border differences, the question arises as to how cross-national distance moderates the level of equity investment and the commitment of human rights violations (Pan & Tse, 2000; Peng & Meyer, 2011; Giuliani & Macchi, 2014).

3.2 Human rights and cross-national distance

This research evaluates cultural, economic and political distances explained previously in order to analyze their moderating impact on human rights violations. Human rights abuses occur primarily due to actions or decisions taken by humans (CHRD, 2015). Hence it is important to understand the moderation effects of cross-national distances mentioned above in order to explain and understand behavioral aspects of humans, respectively MNEs in different parts of the world (Ghemawat, 2001; Gao et al., 2010).

Different human behavior leads to differences in cultural developments (Porter, 2000a). Porter (2000a) argues that the belief in specific values like education or hard work is driven by cultural attributes. As a consequence, human behavior has a significant impact on cultural attributes (Woods, 2010). Humans shape with their behavior the culture in which they are living. These cultures have different moral values and social norms to other cultures (Ghemawat, 2001). Consequently, differences in culture (cultural distance) may explain the infringement of human rights. As mentioned previously, this cultural distance leads among others to LOF for foreign firms which can be overcome by partnering with local firms (Meyer et al., 2009; Oetzel & Doh, 2009). These local partners may have the mentioned different views with respect to moral values and social norms. Depending on the level of equity investment a MNE has or makes in a foreign venture, it can enforce its cultural values.

(35)

26

But the lower the level of equity investment a MNE has in a foreign venture, the less the firm can incorporate its cultural values because of the already previously mentioned less control and decision rights due to minority equity control. Following this, a lack of control may lead to human rights violations.

Cultural distance due to different beliefs in moral values and social norms and the assumption that MNEs with a minority level of equity investment have less power to establish their cultural values and social norms lead to the second hypothesis (H2):

(H2): Cultural distance moderates the relationship between the level of equity investment a MNE makes and that the firm will be accused of a human rights violation such that the longer the distance, the more likely the violation allegation.

Economic indicators like GDP per Capita correlate positively with consumer purchasing power and preferences, macroeconomic stability, and the openness of the economy to external influences (Berry et al., 2010). This means that in countries with low economic power like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, some parents accept child work in the mining industry because they play their part for the survival of the whole family (André & Godin, 2014; World Bank, 2015). Therefore lower economic power may lead to possibilities for firms to break international law with respect to human rights. As a consequence, firms located in countries with low economic power may have lower human rights standards in comparison to ventures located in countries with a strong economic environment (Meyer et al., 2009). This lead to the assumption that differences in economic power (economic distance) may lead to relatively more human rights violations than a short distance. However firms headquartered in weak economic countries also enter countries with a weak economic and institutional environment. This means that the concept of distance may

(36)

27

not work in this case. But there are suggestions that MNEs headquartered in strong economic countries are accused of more human rights violations in countries with weak economic environment than MNEs headquartered in weak economic countries are accused of human rights abuses in countries with a weak economic environment (CHRD, 2015). An explanation for this reason is that firms from rich countries have relatively higher cross-border economic activity relative to their home country economic size than do ventures from economically poor countries (Ghemawat, 2001). Furthermore firms find it easy to deal with host countries with a lack of economic distance from their home country (e.g. because similar physical infrastructures result in operation and distribution efficiency) (Johnson & Tellis, 2008). Based on this assumption, firms with close economic distance to the host country use a majority equity investment as FDI because they are familiar with how to function there because things may work like they did it at home. This means that they are not reliant on a local partner to overcome LOF.

Economic distance due to differences in economic power between countries, the supposition that firms from rich countries do relatively more foreign operations in relation to their home country’s economic size than do ventures from weak economic countries and the assumption that MNEs use a minority equity investment when the economic distance is long leads to the third hypothesis (H3):

(H3): Economic distance moderates the relationship between the level of equity investment a MNE makes and that the firm will be accused of a human rights violation such that the longer the distance, the more likely the violation allegation.

Furthermore human rights abuses and labor rights abuses are also committed by government security forces that protect mining areas and make sure that local workers don’t

(37)

28

exercise their right of freedom of association to collective bargaining (Marques, 2007; Marques, 2008). This violation emphasizes the close relationship between the political environment in the host country and human rights abuses and the possible moderating influences of political differences with respect to human rights violations. Furthermore, countries allow privileges for foreign investors to make investments in their country attractive (e.g. subsidies, tax breaks) (Chor, 1999). This can lead to a significant reduction of government revenues as a result in fewer public investments like education and infrastructure which may weaken the institutional framework of a country (e.g. with respect to the jurisdiction) (Vo, 2004). This weak institutional framework could have an issue with performing its respective duties to protect human rights within its territory or jurisdiction against violations due to non-state actors (e.g. firms). Moreover research by Meyer et al. (2009) shows that MNEs use minority equity share control to operate in foreign countries with weak institutional frameworks (high political risk countries) and high equity share control in countries with strong institutional framework (low political risks countries) (Meyer et al., 2009). This could mean that the weakness of the institutional framework actually impacts the choice of entry mode. Evidence of this assumption can be found in research by Berry et al. (2010): The scholars found out that political differences between home and host countries influence the degree of strategy adjustment needed by the MNE when entering a new country. This leads to the question of how much equity share control the MNE needs in order to adapt its strategy in the host country. This is a challenge for firms because on the one hand they need local partners to overcome the LOF but on the other hand they need certain equity share control to adopt its business model in the host country. Therefore the question arises as to whether these two factors (political distance and level of equity investment) combined make it even worse, or moderate human rights abuses.

(38)

29

Government security forces which violate human rights, institutional frameworks which could have an issue with performing its duties to protect human rights, MNEs who chose minority equity share in politically risky countries and a certain level of equity share control MNEs need to adapt their strategies leads to the fourth hypothesis (H4):

(H4): Political distance moderates the relationship between the level of equity investment a MNE makes and that the firm will be accused of a human rights violation such that the longer the distance, the more likely the violation allegation.

Therefore it is ambiguous to what extent the home country of the MNEs explains these abuses and if cultural, economic and political differences have a significant moderating effect on the interplay between equity entry mode and human rights violations. This leads to the question of how the different cross-national distances moderate the interplay between level of equity share control and human rights violations.

3.3 Conceptual model

The literature review and the developed hypotheses lead to the following conceptual model: The level of equity investment a MNE makes has an impact on human rights abuses committed by MNEs (H1). This interplay is moderated by different forms of cross-national distance based on cultural differences (H2), economic differences (H3) and political differences (H4).

(39)

30

In order to test the validity of the hypothesis mentioned above, chapter 5 will carry out empirical analyses. The following chapter describes the research method of this work.

Figure 1 Conceptual model (Source: Author)

Level of equity investment Human rights violations Cross-national distance H1 H1 H2 H3

(40)

31

4 Research Method

The research method will describe how the research design of this work matches with the research question, how the samples and procedures are appropriate to the research question and how the measurements will establish validity or provide such evidence (Bono & McNamara, 2011). This work will use cross-sectional secondary data about companies, countries and human rights violations in order to test the hypotheses mentioned above. The strength of this research design is the power to compare many different cases at the same time and that the research design is able to analyze very detailed the main assumption (Level of equity investment has an effect on human rights violations) before analyzing supposed moderating effects of the main assumption.

4.1 Data sources

The cross-sectional data of this research is provided by CHRD (2015), Orbis (2015), Hofstede (2015), World Bank (2015) and Freedom House (2015) databases. The Corporations & Human Rights Database Project (CHRD, 2015) offer a set of data about corporate abuse allegations (CAAs) with respect to human rights against over 6000 companies in over 180 countries from 1996 to this day. The CHRD uses the data available from the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC, 2015) and has the biggest data density of human rights violations especially for Latin America (Olsen, 2014). Furthermore the database is organized by the online tool Qualtrics. This makes it possible to find specific data about CAAs (e.g. labor rights violations). Moreover the database provides the possibility to filter CAAs per country and firm. This data makes it feasible to match CAAs with country and firm information. But the CHRD doesn’t cover all abuses provided by the BHRRC website yet, so that this work contributes a part for building the CHRD. Further explanations about the contributions are in subsection 6.2.

(41)

32

The Orbis (2015) database contains information about over 175 million private companies worldwide. The various possible search criteria make it possible to find specific data about companies worldwide. For this work, Orbis (2015) will provide the information about firms and their connections to other companies in order to quantify their foreign equity investments. Furthermore, Orbis (2015) will supply the home countries (headquarter location) of the corporations. This is important for this research in order to calculate the cultural, economic and political distances.

The calculation of cultural distance is based on data about culture provided by the Hofstede Centre (Hofstede, 2015). As already mentioned in subsection 2.1.1, this database provides observations regarding cultural differences between countries and is the most frequently used approach for measurements of cultural distance (Berry et al., 2010).

The calculation of economic distance will be possible with data provided by the World Bank (2015). The World Bank (2015) offers a database named “World bank open data” and offers free and open access to data about development in countries around the globe listed by countries (e.g. GDP per capita). This data makes it possible to analyze differences between countries.

Moreover the database provided by Freedom House (2015) will be used in order to compute political distance between home and host country. The database measures political dimensions like democratic character or civil liberties in order to generate a score which implies if a country is free, partly free or not free (Freedom House, 2015). Several researches already used this database in their research (Berry et al., 2010; Campbell et al., 2014). The following paragraph describes the importance of the data mentioned above and which samples are selected.

Business and Human Rights : entry mode, cross-national distance and human rights violations of MNEs in Latin America

Julian Göbert