Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been defined as “a voluntary set of practices by which corporations establish criteria and goals beyond their primary aim of making a profit when planning and enacting their business strategies” (Taylor & Rioux 2018: 172). These practices usually refer to promoting environmental goals, human rights, fair labour standards and the interests of local communities (ibid.: 172– 3). In theory, CSR goals are integrated into the entire operation process and supply chain, from planning to execution and its aftermath. Codes of conduct, routine monitoring, audits and investigations in response to complaints are the main tools that companies have at their disposal. In practice, however, this reliance on voluntary self- regulation has proven to be inadequate and, as many cases of violations of human and labour rights have demonstrated, even large corporations with strong CSR mechanisms struggle to meet the goals they have set themselves.

At its core, CSR is about branding, creating a positive corporate image for consumers (ibid.: 178). When used exclusively as a public relations mechanism, it fuels justified cynicism. In such cases, the logic of profit maximization often drives the exploitation of workers and local communities, overriding any CSR goals. Negative externalities affecting communities and workers can be intentional (e.g., essential to profitability) or unintentional, resulting from inadequate oversight of the business operations, or both, when multiple levels of oversight are involved. Whatever the case, however, they may cause significant reputational and financial damage to individual corporations and projects.

In this chapter, we turn to the issue of the BRI's social responsibility by focusing on two dimensions, human rights and labour, for which the Initiative continues to attract considerable criticism. A key theme of this book is that the BRI is an extension of China's economically successful experience with development. But, as argued throughout, this is not just a “copy- paste” process in which China exports its practices, regulations and standards alongside its investments, what is referred to as a process of “Sinification”. Instead, we observe a complex dynamic of negotiation and adaptation in the local contexts of host states under the pressure of global capitalism, transnational institutions and local agendas.