abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb




"Rethinking MSIs": MSI Integrity report & blog series on the role of multi-stakeholder initiatives


After reflecting on a decade of research and analysis, our assessment is that this grand experiment has failed. MSIs are not effective tools for holding corporations accountable for abuses, protecting rights holders against human rights violations, or providing survivors and victims with access to remedy. While MSIs can be important and necessary venues for learning, dialogue, and trust-building between corporations and other stakeholders [...] they should not be relied upon for the protection of human rights. They are simply not fit for this purpose. It is time to rethink the role of MSIs.
Not Fit-for-Purpose, Summary Report

In July 2020, MSI Integrity published a report "Not Fit-For-Purpose", concluding after 10 years of research that MSIs have failed to deliver on their promise to protect human rights. The report outlines six key cross-cutting insights and argues it is time to both rethink the role of MSIs and to challenge the corporate form. The report is available below.

To accompany the report, MSI Integrity partnered with Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic to launch a blog series entitled “Rethinking Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives”, the aim of which is to share critical perspectives from a range of voices, with a particular focus on whether MSIs are working for rights holders and whether we need to rethink their role as human rights tools. The contributions are all available below and demonstrate the debate spurred by the report.