Grievance Mechanisms in Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: Providing Effective Remedy for Human Rights Violations?

IF 2.3 Q3 BUSINESS Business and Human Rights Journal Pub Date : 2023-01-16 DOI:10.1017/bhj.2022.37
J. Harrison, Mark Wielga
{"title":"Grievance Mechanisms in Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: Providing Effective Remedy for Human Rights Violations?","authors":"J. Harrison, Mark Wielga","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.37","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article presents an empirical study of six grievance mechanisms in multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs). It argues that key characteristics of each grievance mechanism as well as the contexts in which they operate significantly affect human rights outcomes. However, even the most successful mechanisms only manage to produce remedies in particular types of cases and contexts. The research also finds that it is prohibitively difficult to determine whether ‘effective’ remedy has been achieved in individual cases. Furthermore, the key intervention by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), to prescribe a set of effectiveness criteria for designing or revising MSI grievance mechanisms, itself appears ineffective in stimulating better outcomes for rights-holders. Drawing on these findings, the article reflects on the future potential and limitations of MSI grievance mechanisms within broader struggles to ensure business respect for human rights.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":"8 1","pages":"43 - 65"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business and Human Rights Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.37","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract This article presents an empirical study of six grievance mechanisms in multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs). It argues that key characteristics of each grievance mechanism as well as the contexts in which they operate significantly affect human rights outcomes. However, even the most successful mechanisms only manage to produce remedies in particular types of cases and contexts. The research also finds that it is prohibitively difficult to determine whether ‘effective’ remedy has been achieved in individual cases. Furthermore, the key intervention by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), to prescribe a set of effectiveness criteria for designing or revising MSI grievance mechanisms, itself appears ineffective in stimulating better outcomes for rights-holders. Drawing on these findings, the article reflects on the future potential and limitations of MSI grievance mechanisms within broader struggles to ensure business respect for human rights.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多方利益攸关方倡议中的申诉机制:为侵犯人权行为提供有效补救?
摘要本文对多方利益相关者倡议中的六种申诉机制进行了实证研究。它认为,每种申诉机制的关键特征及其运作的背景都会对人权结果产生重大影响。然而,即使是最成功的机制,也只能在特定类型的案件和情况下采取补救措施。研究还发现,很难确定在个别情况下是否取得了“有效”的补救措施。此外,《联合国工商业与人权指导原则》规定了一套设计或修订MSI申诉机制的有效性标准,这一关键干预措施本身似乎无法为权利持有人带来更好的结果。根据这些发现,文章反思了MSI申诉机制在确保企业尊重人权的更广泛斗争中的未来潜力和局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
13.60%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: The Business and Human Rights Journal (BHRJ) provides an authoritative platform for scholarly debate on all issues concerning the intersection of business and human rights in an open, critical and interdisciplinary manner. It seeks to advance the academic discussion on business and human rights as well as promote concern for human rights in business practice. BHRJ strives for the broadest possible scope, authorship and readership. Its scope encompasses interface of any type of business enterprise with human rights, environmental rights, labour rights and the collective rights of vulnerable groups. The Editors welcome theoretical, empirical and policy / reform-oriented perspectives and encourage submissions from academics and practitioners in all global regions and all relevant disciplines. A dialogue beyond academia is fostered as peer-reviewed articles are published alongside shorter ‘Developments in the Field’ items that include policy, legal and regulatory developments, as well as case studies and insight pieces.
期刊最新文献
Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence (mHRDD) Laws Caught Between Rituals and Ritualism: The Forms and Limits of Business Authority in the Global Governance of Business and Human Rights Seeking Justice. Access to Remedy for Corporate Human Rights Abuse, by Tricia D. Olsen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023) Creating an Effective Mediation Scheme for Business-Related Human Rights Abuses: The Case of Ukraine Vulnerability Theory as a Paradigm Shift in International Investment Law: Reimagining the Role of the State Corporate Social Irresponsibility, an Elastic Wall, and a Fragile State: Sign of Hope’s Unfinished Quest to Mitigate Human Rights Violations in South Sudan
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1