IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buhurj/v6y2021i2p241-254_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rise of Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence: A Beacon of Hope or a Double-Edged Sword?

Author

Listed:
  • QUIJANO, Gabriela
  • LOPEZ, Carlos

Abstract

This article discusses the evolution, current trends, limitations and controversies around the understanding and practice of human rights due diligence (HRDD), a concept developed in the course of the work of United Nations (UN)-mandate holder, John Ruggie, and enshrined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. While the concept has gathered broad acceptance and a growing number of legislative proposals are seeking to entrench it in law, significant differences of opinion exist among stakeholders as to its nature, objectives and relationship, if any, with legal liability. These differing understandings are at play in a contest to shape future legislation. Some of these carry significant risks for rights-holders, notably the risk of outcome being superseded by process and superficial, compliance-oriented HRDD prevailing in the law or in its interpretation and practice. As legislative efforts continue, the authors warn against the risk of hollow laws which do little to change the status quo or, even worse, inadvertently provide a tool to further impunity for business-related human rights abuses.

Suggested Citation

  • QUIJANO, Gabriela & LOPEZ, Carlos, 2021. "Rise of Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence: A Beacon of Hope or a Double-Edged Sword?," Business and Human Rights Journal, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 241-254, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:buhurj:v:6:y:2021:i:2:p:241-254_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2057019821000079/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buhurj:v:6:y:2021:i:2:p:241-254_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bhj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.