Many large companies have made money while working with/for governments that have had poor records on human rights - not simply in terms of discrimination and oppression, but also torture and murder. Indirectly, then, these companies have profited from the abuse of human rights. Does this mean that those companies have either an ethical or a legal responsibility towards those who were harmed by the governments in question?

That's the argument being made by Joseph E. Stiglitz in an article in Pakistan's Daily Times:

[M]odern society cannot and does not simply rely on individuals doing the “right” thing. It provides carrots and sticks. Motivating corporations to do the right thing is even more difficult. After all, corporations don’t have a conscience; it is only the conscience of those who run the corporation, and as America’s recent corporate scandals have made all too clear, conscience often takes a backseat to profits.

In World War II, German corporations were all too willing to profit from the slave labor of those in concentration camps, and Swiss banks were happy to pocket the gold of Jewish victims of Nazi terror. Recent suits have made them at least pay back some of what they took. More recently, oil companies have demonstrated little conscience in providing money that feeds guerrilla movements—so long as their own interests are preserved. When, in Angola, one brave firm, BP, wanted to do the right thing by trying to make sure that oil royalties actually go to the government, rather than to corrupt officials, other oil companies refused to go along.

The most immediate issue for Stiglitz seems to be Apartheid: external economic support helped keep the system going in South Africa, so those corporations who profited from dealing with South Africa have a moral responsibility would make reparations to the people who were harmed and who are still suffering from the effects. Does that translate into a legal responsibility which can be enforced through lawsuits?

I don't know. Not every moral responsibility can indeed be translated into a legal responsibility. Stiglitz does, however, make an important point with regards to the issue of social requirements: if we could rely on people to always do the right thing, we wouldn't need laws; we can't rely on that, however, and that's why we need to provide negative and positive incentives for people to do the right thing.

The same is even more true when it comes to corporations because they don't have a conscience. If corporations did voluntarily do the "right thing" here, there wouldn't be any need for legal action. And does anyone dispute the idea that there is some degree of moral responsibility here? If, however, corporations don't do the right thing, what should the response be?

Read More:

• Guide to Ethics and Morality