Respecting, protecting and fulfilling human rights must become more prominent in both the processes and outcomes of resettlement. We have developed a Human Rights-Based Approach to Resettlement for use by project operators, rights holders and governments so that they can better understand what the corporate responsibility to respect human rights entails in situations of involuntary resettlement and expropriation. We outline the procedural human rights principles and resettlement outcomes that must be achieved in order for resettlement to be considered human rights compliant. We also consider how human rights are addressed in the International Finance Corporation Performance Standard 5 on land acquisition and involuntary resettlement. We suggest that the International Finance Corporation's largely silent approach towards the private sector's human rights responsibilities potentially understates the significant human rights risks that characterize displacement and involuntary resettlement.

Challenges in implementing the corporate responsibility to respect human rights in the context of project-induced displacement and resettlement van der Ploeg, Lidewij; Vanclay, Francis

This paper identifies and addresses the challenges of implementing the corporate responsibility to respect human rights in practice at project sites. To support on-ground operational staff, we offer the Human Rights Sphere (HRS), a practical tool we developed from empirical research in three large-scale projects and from an analytical literature review. The tool is consistent with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP). The HRS comprises seven steps through which the understanding and addressing of the social and human rights impacts of projects and corporate human rights due diligence procedures can be enhanced. The HRS describes the various groups of rights-holders to be considered, the social and environmental impacts they may experience, and how these impacts can be linked to actual or potential human rights impacts. The HRS shows how corporate mitigation and compensation practices have to be improved to prevent human rights harm to workers and communities. The HRS presents a comprehensive picture of the human rights side of projects and is presented as a practical tool that can be utilized by operational staff at all project phases. By utilising the HRS, multinational corporations will be better equipped to address the adverse human rights impacts of large projects.

In response to the establishment of universally-accepted principles about sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporations are now producing Sustainability Reports (SRs). Corporations are expected to document their positive and negative impacts on society. However, the veracity of the information in these reports is being questioned. To what extent is it greenwashing? While the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) provides a framework for reporting, effective mechanisms to evaluate reports are lacking. We propose a Sustainability Reporting Assessment Checklist of 10 questions as a functional tool for use by stakeholders to evaluate the content of SRs. For a demonstration of the effectiveness of the checklist, it is applied to a real but anonymous company. The questions cover: accessibility; readability; the use of an established framework (e.g. GRI); incorporation of CSR and sustainability into long-term strategy; consideration of all relevant aspects of operations; use of evidence to support claims; documented stakeholder engagement; supply chain responsibility; documented impacts on all stakeholders (including vulnerable groups and negatively affected groups); and assurance assessment.

The global food system has severe implications for human health, soil quality, biodiversity, and quality of life. This paper provides an analysis on how transnational alliances challenge the global food system. We illustrate this by focusing on the activities and hearings of the International Monsanto Tribunal (IMT), held in the Hague in 2016. The IMT provided a platform for civil society and enabled transnational alliances to demand attention for local struggles and legal disputes in relation to Monsanto's products. With the involvement of independent and renowned experts, the knowledge exchange between local victims and civil society was enhanced, and the IMT reinforced social movement's goals towards demanding justice for the negative effects associated with the global food system. The advisory opinion determined that Monsanto's practices are in violation with human rights standards. The IMT exemplified that there is an immediate need for structural change in the current global food system.