{"id":5250,"date":"2025-02-15T20:21:28","date_gmt":"2025-02-16T01:21:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/?page_id=5250"},"modified":"2025-08-19T12:47:24","modified_gmt":"2025-08-19T16:47:24","slug":"human-rights-labor","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/human-rights-labor\/","title":{"rendered":"Human Rights &amp; Labor"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">VOLUME 12 \u2022 ISSUE 2 \u2022 PRINT<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/87\/2023\/02\/HBLR-12-2-Webber-Should-Labor-Abandon-its-Capital.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">SHOULD LABOR ABANDON ITS CAPITAL?&nbsp;A REPLY TO CRITICS<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em>David H. Webber<\/em><\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Several recent works have sharply criticized public pension funds and labor union funds (\u201clabor\u2019s capital\u201d). These critiques come from both the left and right. Leftists criticize labor\u2019s capital for undermining worker interests by funding financialization and the growth of Wall Street. Laissez-faire conservatives argue that pension underfunding threatens taxpayers. The left calls for pensions to be replaced by a larger social security system. The libertarian right calls for them to be smashed and scattered into individually managed 401(k)s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">VOLUME 12 \u2022 ISSUE 2 \u2022 PRINT<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/87\/2023\/03\/HBLR-12-2-Honigsberg-Rajgopal-Wage-Wars.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WAGE WARS: THE BATTLE OVER HUMAN CAPITAL ACCOUNTING<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><i>Colleen Honigsberg and Shivaram Rajgopal<\/i><\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Over the past few decades, we have seen an explosion of so-called \u201chuman capital firms\u201d\u2014that is, firms that generate value due to the knowledge, skills, competencies, and attributes of their workforce. Yet, despite the value generated by employees, U.S. accounting principles provide virtually no information on firm labor. Barely fifteen percent of firms disclose information as basic as labor costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">VOLUME 12 \u2022 ISSUE 2 \u2022 PRINT<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/87\/2023\/03\/HBLR-12-2-Eckbo-et-al-Mandatory-Board-Gender-Balancing.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">DOES MANDATORY BOARD GENDER-BALANCING REDUCE FIRM VALUE?<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em>B. Espen Eckbo, Knut Nygaard, and Karin S. Thornburn<\/em><\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Mandated board gender balancing is a social-policy instrument, which in principle is unrelated to concerns about firms\u2019 economic performance. Nonetheless, imposing such a policy may have unintended consequences (positive or negative) for firm value, which is important for all of the firm\u2019s constituencies\u2014not only shareholders. In this paper, we highlight and extend our recent research on the economic effects of Norway\u2019s pioneering gender-quota law, which forced board gender balancing of all domestic public limited corporations by early 2008. This research subsumes and econometrically corrects controversial conclusions of extant studies. Most important, our research shows that quota-induced changes in market valuations and operating performance were both ec- onomically and statistically negligible. Furthermore, we show that corporate conversions to a legal form that prevents the firm from raising public equity capital\u2014but does not require gender balancing\u2014were unrelated to the company\u2019s pre-quota female director shortfall. We also present new evidence that boards managed to preserve directors\u2019 large-firm CEO experience without in- creasing director busyness. We conclude that the supply of qualified female director candidates was sufficiently large to avoid board concentration and negative economic effects of the quota restriction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">VOLUME 10 \u2022 COLUMNS<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/87\/2020\/05\/Zalnieriute_Final_Draft_vFINAL.pdf\">HUMAN RIGHTS RHETORIC IN GLOBAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE: NEW ICANN BYLAW ON HUMAN RIGHTS<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em>Monika Zalnieriute<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"1\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000001f40000000000000000_5250\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000001f40000000000000000_5250-1\">1<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000001f40000000000000000_5250-1\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"1\">Fellow and Lead of \u201cTechnologies and Rule of Law\u201d Research Stream, Allens Hub for Technology, Law and Innovation, Faculty of Law, UNSW Sydney, Australia. Justine Nolan, Nicolas Suzor, Angela Daly, Robin Gross, Stephanie Perrin, Felicity Bell and Leah Grolman for their insightful comments on earlier drafts. I am also grateful to ICANN&#8217;s Non-Commercial Users Constiuency, in particular Milton Mueller, Farzaneh Badiei, Collin Kurre, Stefania Milan, Niels ten Oever, Vidushi Marda, Aarti Bhavana, Kathy Kleiman and Konstantinos Komaitis, who have worked hard to advocate and promote human rights at ICANN.<\/span><\/em><\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>As part of a significant institutional reform in global governance of the Internet, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (\u201cICANN\u201d)\u2014an internationally organised multi-stakeholder body that secures the operation of the Domain Name System (\u201cDNS\u201d) globally\u2014has recently included a \u201cCore Value\u201d of \u201crespect for internationally recognised human rights\u201d in its Bylaws. Since the DNS is integral for navigating and browsing the Internet, policies governing its operation have enormous human rights implications at the global level. After more than three years of multi-stakeholder deliberations over the appropriate Framework of Interpretation (FOI) for the new Core Value, ICANN Board has finally approved it in November 2019, taking one crucial step forward towards the implementation of its newly pronounced human rights aspirations. This article critically examines ICANN\u2019s latest human rights rhetoric and argues that the new aspirations in the Bylaws are drafted in a way that they carry little, if any, legal weight. I will further show that the new aspirations in the Bylaws are much weaker than the quasi-constitutional, self-imposed commitments in ICANN\u2019s founding documents\u2014the Articles of Incorporation. ICANN has proved to be reluctant to comply with those self-imposed commitments in the past; and I argue that it is, therefore, unlikely to convert its novel human rights rhetoric into practice. This raises questions about the extent of its commitment to human rights values, and whether the new Core Value amounts to little more than a veneer intended to bolster ICANN\u2019s public image and confidence in light of the ongoing institutional reforms in Internet Governance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">VOLUME 9 \u2022 ISSUE 2 \u2022 PRINT<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/87\/2020\/01\/HLB201-3.pdf\">THE ANALYSIS OF BENEFITS IN CONSUMER PROTECTION REGULATIONS<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em><strong><em>Howell E. Jackson &amp; Paul Rothstein<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Over the past decade, cost-benefit analysis in the field of financial regulation (\u201cfinancial CBA\u201d) has emerged as a topic of intense public interest. In reviewing rulemakings under the Administrative Procedure Act, courts have demanded greater rigor in the financial CBA that regulators provide in support of new regulations. Industry experts and other analysts have repeatedly questioned the adequacy of agency assessments of costs and benefits. And legal academics have engaged in a robust dialogue over the merits of financial CBA and the value of alternative institutional structures for overseeing financial CBA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">VOLUME 9 \u2022 COLUMNS<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/87\/2019\/05\/Yadin-Formatted-for-Online.pdf\">SAVING LIVES THROUGH SHAMING<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em>Sharon Yadin<\/em><\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) routinely employs shaming tactics toward employers, using public denunciations disseminated through social media, press releases, and online databases. These tactics, termed by the agency \u201cregulation by shaming,\u201d aim to name and shame companies into compliance with worker-safety regulations. In the face of heavy criticism of this practice, as well as legislative initiatives that aim to scale back OSHA\u2019s regulation by shaming, this Article argues not only that shaming employers is an important regulatory tool that can help save workers\u2019 lives, but also that OSHA\u2019s \u201cprovocative\u201d shaming tactics are in fact soft in comparison to other forms of regulatory shaming, and should be amplified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">VOLUME 5 \u2022 ISSUE 2 \u2022 PRINT<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/87\/2015\/06\/HBLR-5.2-Sepinwall-Corporate-Piety-and-Impropriety.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">CORPORATE PIETY AND IMPROPRIETY:&nbsp;<em>HOBBY LOBBY<\/em>&#8216;S EXTENSION OF RFRA RIGHTS TO THE FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em><strong>Amy J. Sepinwall<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Inc., the Supreme Court held, for the first time, that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) applied to for-profit corporations and, on that basis, it allowed Hobby Lobby to omit otherwise mandated contraceptive coverage from its employee healthcare package. Critics argue that the Court\u2019s novel expansion of corporate rights is fundamentally inconsistent with the basic principles of corporate law. In particular, they contend that the decision ignores the fact that the corporation, as an artificial entity, cannot exercise religion in its own right, and they decry the notion that the law might look through the corporate veil to protect the corporate owners\u2019 rights even while having the veil shield the owners from liability for the corporation\u2019s wrongs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">VOLUME 3 \u2022 COLUMNS<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/\/2012\/10\/spacs-and-the-jobs-act\/\"><strong>SPACS AND THE JOBS ACT<\/strong><\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em>Usha Rodrigues<\/em><\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Consider the story of the emerging growth company (EGC), or \u201cInitial Public Offering (IPO) on-ramp,\u201d provision of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act). In its first few months on the books, this provision had effects far different from what its drafters envisioned. The JOBS Act\u2019s IPO on-ramp was intended to ease regular companies\u2019 path to going public; instead, it has inadvertently made it easier for the average investor to get a taste of private equity via special purpose acquisition corporations (SPACs). This piece will briefly describe SPACs, the IPO on-ramp, and how shell companies have taken advantage of a legislative provision intended to bring cash-hungry young companies directly to market. This piece will close with a few thoughts on lessons the story of SPACs\u2019 interaction with the JOBS Act may offer regarding the increasingly indistinct line that divides public and private investment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>VOLUME 12 \u2022 ISSUE 2 \u2022 PRINT SHOULD LABOR ABANDON ITS CAPITAL?&nbsp;A REPLY TO CRITICS David H. Webber Several recent [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":109,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-5250","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/PgKEUK-1mG","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":4948,"url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/volume-12\/","url_meta":{"origin":5250,"position":0},"title":"Volume 12, Issue 2","author":"wgu","date":"February 10, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"CORPORATE LAW & GOVERNANCE \u2022 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, & GOVERNANCE FRAMING THE ISSUES: BOARD DIVERSITY\u00a0AND CORPORATE PURPOSE Joel Seligman This article makes three key claims. First, Board diversity has a long pedigree and has long involved far more than gender, minority, and LGBTQ+ representation. Second, corporate purpose\u2013long described by state corporate\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":3822,"url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/volume-4-issue-1\/","url_meta":{"origin":5250,"position":1},"title":"Volume 4, Issue 1 (2014)","author":"Dayme Sanchez","date":"August 8, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"SECURITIES & FINANCIAL REGULATION \u2022 BANKING REGULATING CAPITAL Prasad Krishnamurthy Most observers agree that the excessive debt or leverage of systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) was a central reason why the housing crash of 2007\u20132009 led to a recession. The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":5049,"url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/volume-13-issue-1\/","url_meta":{"origin":5250,"position":2},"title":"Volume 13, Issue 1","author":"wgu","date":"August 8, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"BUSINESS & CORPORATIONS IS \u201cPUBLIC COMPANY\u201d STILL A VIABLE REGULATORY CATEGORY? George S. Georgiev This Article suggests that the ubiquitous \u201cpublic company\u201d regulatory category, as currently constructed, has outlived its effectiveness in fulfilling core goals of the modern administrative state. An ever-expanding array of federal economic regulation hinges on public\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":4892,"url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/volume-14-issue-1\/","url_meta":{"origin":5250,"position":3},"title":"Volume 14, Issue 1","author":"wgu","date":"December 17, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"BUSINESS & CORPORATIONS RETHINKING COMMERCIAL LAW'S UNCERTAIN BOUNDARIES Steven L. Schwarcz Although it is an essential part of business law, commercial law has uncertain boundaries. That uncertainty creates significant legal ambiguities and inconsistencies, confusing lawyers and courts and causing misinterpretations that disrupt commerce and reduce efficiency. This Article hypothesizes and\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":5252,"url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/investing-asset-management\/","url_meta":{"origin":5250,"position":4},"title":"Investing &amp; Asset Management","author":"wgu","date":"February 15, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"VOLUME 13 \u2022 ISSUE 1 \u2022 PRINT PROMISE & PERIL OF PLAIN ENGLISH: MUTUAL FUND DISCLOSURE READABILITY Anne M. Tucker & Yusen Xia The SEC requires mutual funds to write disclosures for the average investor using plain English. These requirements make funds\u2019 investment strategies and associated risks transparent and accessible\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5250","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/109"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5250"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5250\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/hblr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5250"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}