During the last decade, the role of corporations has risen to a somewhat unprecedented level of prominence in the discipline of International Relations. Nevertheless, within the broader theme of business in global governance as well as within the more specific area of business and human rights most research sufficed itself with studying the output dimension of governance, i.e. the emerging global norms, regulations and policies addressing corporate behaviour. Limited efforts have been made to investigate the impact of these rules on the local level in terms of problem solution. The proposed paper intends to make a contribution to closing this gap in empirical knowledge by focusing on one very particular form of corporate engagement with human rights, namely the role non-judicial remedies in addressing rights infringements. Thanks to the impressive promotion of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, grievance mechanisms and their likes are mushrooming in the world’s biggest multinational corporations, primarily in those with operations in developing countries. In the latter, corporate presences – whether of extractive, manufacturing, agricultural or infrastructure industries – have regularly lead to serious social conflicts, sometimes erupting in violence, that often become long-term and protracted but are rarely ‘dissolved’. The paper aims to investigate to what extent the emergence and spread of non-judicial mechanisms makes a difference here as it inquires into their impact on conflict and violence at the micro level. Drawing on micro-level field research data from the Peruvian mining industry and (hopefully, i.e. if the researcher’s resources permit) on quantitative data from the global apparel industry, the paper tests different modes of measuring impact. It therefore aims to arrive at an empirical understanding of how grievance mechanisms work as well as at a conceptual model for measuring local-level business impact.
