23 April 2024: We are investigating problems with ecommerce on Cambridge Core. We apologise for any inconvenience and hope to have full functionality restored shortly.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2023
There is growing recognition of the need for a more ‘socially just’ implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) that embraces bottom-up, rights holder-driven approaches.1 An initiative is underway to articulate a set of community principles to supplement the three-pillar ‘respect, protect, remedy’ framework of the UNGPs, with a fourth pillar that underscores the importance of rights holder agency to the effective implementation of human rights protections.2 With regard to access to remedy, the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights has emphasized that ‘rights holders should be central to the entire remedy process’,3 and others have made similar observations, encouraging a ‘co-design’ process.4
1 Rajiv Maher and Karin Buhmann, ‘Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement: Bottom-up Initiatives Within Global Governance Frameworks’ (2019) 107 Geoforum 231.
2 Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic, ‘Fourth Pillar: Community Principles for Business and Human Rights’ (21 March 2021) (first iteration draft on file with author).
3 UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, UNGPs 10+ A Roadmap for the Next Decade of Business and Human Rights (Geneva: UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, November 2021).
4 International Commission of Jurists, Effective Operational-Level Grievance Mechanisms (Geneva: International Commission of Jurists, November 2019).
5 See, e.g., Coalition of Immokalee Workers, ‘US Department of Labor Lifts Up Fair Food Program as National Model for Eradicating Forced Labor!’ (10 February 2022), https://ciw-online.org/blog/2022/02/dolpanel/ (accessed 12 August 2022); Alieza Durana and Haley Swenson, ‘Using the Power of Supply Chains to End Sexual Harassment’, Harvard Business Review (16 October 2018); James Brudney, ‘Decent Labour Standards in Corporate Supply Chains: The Immokalee Workers Model’, in Joanna Howe and Rosemary Owens (eds.), Temporary Labour Migration in the Global Era (Hart Publishing, 2016) 351.
6 Asbed, Greg and Hitov, Steve, ‘Preventing Forced Labor in Corporate Supply Chains: The Fair Food Program and Worker-Driven Social Responsibility’ (2017) 52 Wake Forest Law Review 497 Google Scholar, 514.
7 Ibid, 504.
8 Rìos, Gabriela Raquel, ‘Cultivating Land-Based Literacies and Rhetorics’ (2015) 3:1 Literacy in Composition Studies 60, 66 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 For a history of the campaign, see Marquis, Susan L, ‘Campaigning for Fair Food’, in I Am Not a Tractor! How Florida Farmworkers Took on the Fast Food Giants and Won (Ithaca: ILR Press, an imprint of Cornell University Press, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Outhwaite, Opi and Martin-Ortega, Olga, ‘Worker-Driven Monitoring: Redefining Supply Chain Monitoring to Improve Labour Rights in Global Supply Chains’ (2019) 23:4 Competition & Change 378 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 Institute for Multi-Stakeholder Initiative Integrity, Not Fit for Purpose: The Grand Experiment of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives in Corporate Accountability, Human Rights and Global Governance (San Francisco: Institute for Multistakeholder Initiative Integrity, 2020), 46.
13 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings Rulemaking, https://www.osha.gov/heat-exposure/rulemaking (accessed 12 August 2022).
14 National Federation of Independent Business v Dept of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 95 U.S. (2022) (per curiam).
