Business and Human Rights - Access to Remedy - 20 Reports released


10 in depth case studies

...examining harms caused by mining, agribusiness and textile clothing and footwear production in India and Indonesia, and the attempts of communities and workers to pursue some form of remedy through complaints mechanisms, legal cases, long term organizing and shorter term campaigns. This includes case studies of POSCO's Odisha ProjectIndia's Tea Sectorthe Siawan Belida REDD+ ProjectWilmar and Palm Oil GrievancesTribal Claims against the Vedanta Bauxite Mine and RefineryComplaints related to the PT Weda Nickel MineRajasthan Stone QuarriesLeather footwear workers in Tamil NaduForced labour in the Textile and Garment sector in India, and the Global Footwear and Apparel Supply Chains in Indonesia


5 reports analyzing specific non-judicial redress mechanisms

...including the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) of the International Finance Corporation and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency and the National Contact Point initiative of the OECD as well as three multi-stakeholder initiatives that provide avenues for redress: the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), and the Freedom of Association Protocol, an Indonesian based multi-stakeholder initiative with links to major sportswear brands.


3 reports with specific recommendations for Australia and the United Kingdom countries that domicile multinationals and financiers involved in the ten cases studied or have significant supply chain connections with those cases.

In November 2016, the Non Judicial Human Rights Redress Mechanisms project launched the findings of five years of research and analysis animated by questions about how a growing class of non-judicial redress mechanisms operates in practice to enable access to remedy for people affected by human rights abuses.  
The findings are based on over 587 interviews, with 1,100 individuals who were generous enough to share their views and experience about the case studies and mechanisms researched.
We invite you to read, comment, and share them as widely as possible. 

We are excited to share 20 reports
 with you including case studies, mechanism reports and cross-cutting analysis. 


“The Non Judicial Human Rights Redress Mechanisms reports represent an exceptional and timely contribution to the Australian discussion around business and human rights. At the exact moment that Australian Government, business and civil society are focusing their minds on Australia’s implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, these reports make a compelling case that significant and urgent reform is required if we’re to secure the right to a remedy for communities and workers affected by corporate human rights violations.” Rachel Ball, Director of Advocacy, Human Rights Law Centre


2 cross-cutting reports

1 report that summarises the lessons for our broader understanding of non-judicial redress mechanisms, and reflects on the UN Guiding Principles Effectiveness Criteria for Non-Judicial Redress Mechanisms.

1 guide with lessons and questions for communities, workers, civil society, trade unions and other allies thinking about taking a complaint through a non-judicial redress mechanism.

These reports provide a complex and detailed analysis of the role played by these mechanisms. They show not only the deficiencies of the mechanisms but how they might be strengthened to ensure more effective accountability. More specifically, the research as a whole highlights the importance of understanding how international non-judicial mechanisms intersect with host country (i.e. Indian and Indonesian) mechanisms, local laws and local forms of political organising. Access to different mechanisms of accountability, including but not limited to non-judicial approaches, hold the potential to provide the necessary leverage for redress.

This research contains important lessons for the design and reform of mechanisms, national reform of access to remedy, the development of Business and Human Rights National Action Plans, and debates about a binding treaty. They also provide a resource for people pursuing remedies for human rights harms by business and for the organisations, networks and individuals that support them.
In future newsletters we will highlight specific reports with stories and interviews with researchers.
If you want to share your feedback or discuss ways to share these findings more widely please get in touch –

Research Team: Dr Shelley Marshall, Dr Kate Macdonald, Prof. Sheldon Leader, Prof Fiona Haines, Dr Samantha Balaton-Chrimes, Dr Tim Connor, Dr Annie Delaney, Sarah Rennie, May Miller-Dawkins