When MSIs first emerged in the 1990s, they appeared to offer a transformative and exciting proposition. For years human rights and advocacy organizations had been investigating and naming-and-shaming companies for their connections to sweatshop labor, deforestation, corruption, and other abusive behavior. As this advocacy grew louder—and as government regulation of corporations remained elusive—a new experiment began. Rather than being barred from boardrooms, some large civil society organizations began working alongside businesses to draft codes of conduct, create industry oversight mechanisms, and design novel systems of multi-stakeholder governance that aimed to protect rights holders and benefit communities.

This report is a collection of the key insights into MSIs gained over the past decade. Central to the approach is the understanding of standard-setting MSIs as a field. While each MSI is unique in its history and context, the MSIs that we have examined—and that are in our MSI Database—are a set of institutions that share a common architecture: (1) governance by a multi-stakeholder body; (2) the creation of transnational standards that include or affect human rights; and (3) the establishment of mechanisms designed to offer assurances that their members are complying with their standards (e.g., monitoring, reporting, or grievance mechanisms).

Not Fit-for-Purpose: The Grand Experiment of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives in Corporate Accountability, Human Rights and Global Governance - Institute for Multi-Stakeholder Initiative Integrity, 2020 DOWNLOAD
Not Fit-for-Purpose: The Grand Experiment of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives in Corporate Accountability, Human Rights and Global Governance (Summary) - Institute for Multi-Stakeholder Initiative Integrity, 2020 DOWNLOAD

post

page

attachment

revision

nav_menu_item

custom_css

customize_changeset

oembed_cache

user_request

wp_block

wp_template

wp_template_part

wp_global_styles

wp_navigation

wp_font_family

wp_font_face

acf-taxonomy

acf-post-type

acf-field-group

acf-field

ai1ec_event

exactmetrics_note

National Hotline 2019 New York State Report
Graphics & InfographicsPublications

The data in this report represents signals and cases from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 and is accurate as of July 30, 2020. Cases of trafficking may be ongoing or new information may revealed to the National Hotline over time. Consequen...Read More

The Case for an Australian Modern Slavery Act
Publications

Australia needs a “Modern Slavery Act” that addresses three issues as a priority: Anti-Slavery Commissioner - appointment of an Anti-Slavery Commissioner to provide independent oversight, with powers to monitor laws and hold business and th...Read More

TAGS: Oceania
Defining the Gap: Data Collection on Trafficking in Human Beings and Exploitation in Germany –The Civil Society Approach of the KOK
Publications

The collection of empirical data on the phenomenon of trafficking in human beings and exploitation is essential in determining the extent of this human rights violation, as well as in deriving from the findings policies and measures for the protecti...Read More

TAGS: Europe
Reality Behind Brands’ CSR Hypocrisy: An Investigative Report on China Suppliers of ZARA, H&M, and GAP
Publications

In the spring of 2015 and 2016, SACOM conducted undercover investigations inside four of Zara, H&M, and GAP’s supplier factories in China. Despite three brands’ CSR policies appear to be comprehensive and enable them to proclaim ethical, SA...Read More