Three decades ago, when governments showed interest in exploring the regulation of the conduct of transnational corporations, they responded to growing evidence of environmental pollution in the 1960s and 1970s. This phenomenon questioned the assumed overlap between profitability to the company and profitability to the community. It questioned the old belief, reflected in a remark by the US Secretary of Defense at the time, saying ‘What is good for the country is good for General Motors, and what is good for General Motors is good for the country’ (Dell 1990: 55). When Americans celebrated their first Earth Day in 1970, the focus was on the local backyard. Yet over the years citizens had to learn that environment knows no borders. Similarly, companies had to learn that an absolute separation of what happens inside and outside the factory gate is impossible. The ensuing debate about command-and-control enforcement and voluntarism was related to the degree of involvement of business in society. Today, the question is: ‘Does the elastic concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) know no borders?’ Tackling the issue from a UN platform, the Global Compact has been on a steep leaning curve over the past four years.