In an earlier blog post, I introduced the argument that the conceptual language of epistemic injustice would be a useful tool for helping address harmful practices of corporate power. My recent paper takes that idea and runs with it a bit further, and using access to remedy through non-judicial grievance mechanisms (NJGMs) as an example, it argues not only that the conceptual language of epistemic injustice is useful for BHR, but also that it is an ethical obligation to “interrogate and address” epistemic injustice if BHR sees itself as a field that contributes to justice and if it truly aims to centre rights holders. 

The consultative process for UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights’ s thematic report to the 77th session of the UN General Assembly framed the topic as “ensuring business respect for human rights in the political and regulatory sphere and preventing “corporate capture.” So why was corporate capture missing from the report?

Analytical frameworks offer a more detailed lens through which to understand and talk about power imbalances in the BHR context. The different approaches highlighted in this post map out the various ways in which corporations exercise power in the BHR space, and help to identify less visible forms of power used in company-community engagement, and consider the epistemic dimensions of power and its material impact.