The adoption of mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD) regulations is often portrayed as a way to counter the shortcomings of private voluntary standards. However, these regulations build on the idea of a smart-mix between public and private policies. Consequently, in response to the new supply chain laws, we can expect important changes in private initiatives to assist companies in interpreting and complying with legal requirements. Nonetheless, it remains unclear whether HREDD regulations will help to improve existing private regulatory instruments, or whether companies will engage in practices and participate in multi-stakeholder initiatives that result in mere symbolic compliance. Our study focuses on grievance mechanisms, which are a key component of HREDD systems, as they can help to identify adverse impacts that need to be addressed.
This study examines how private actors in the agri-food sector have established and adapted their grievance mechanisms since the introduction of the French Duty of Vigilance law (2017) and the German Supply Chain Due Diligence act (2021), which foresee that companies create or participate in a corporate grievance mechanism. Given that public governance encourages private sector adjustments, it is relevant to investigate whether and how private governance evolves for enhancing corporate accountability in global supply chains.
Through document analysis and qualitative interviews, we aim to determine to what extent and how public supply chain regulations affect the institutional design and effective use of private grievance mechanisms. We specifically examine and compare three types of private grievance mechanisms: (1) grievance mechanisms of individual companies, (2) grievance mechanisms of multi-stakeholder initiatives like certification schemes, and (3) newly emerging private alliances for industry-wide grievance mechanisms. We provide for an in-depth analysis of the institutional design of these different types and reflect upon which mechanism is most likely to effectively redress the human rights and environmental situation on the ground. By analyzing how private regulatory initiatives have responded to new binding rules, we seek to advance ongoing debates on public-private interactions, transnational business regulations, and business and human rights.
