The Third Pillar: the 2013 study of barriers to corporate human-rights remedies

The report and its authors

Launched on 4 December 2013, The Third Pillar was a joint report by the International Corporate Accountability Roundtable, CORE and the European Coalition for Corporate Justice. Its authors were Gwynne Skinner, Robert McCorquodale, Olivier De Schutter and Andie Lambe. The report examined barriers to judicial remedy for human-rights violations involving transnational business activity. ICAR’s report record identifies the coalition and launch; BIICL’s account describes the research scope.

Consultation and jurisdictional mapping

The research used consultations and mapping, including a questionnaire, to examine legal and procedural obstacles. Its seven jurisdictions were Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. The inquiry compared access-to-remedy conditions across these systems; it was a research project, not a set of judgments concerning particular companies.

Our analysis: The comparative method gives the report value as a map of recurring procedural concerns, while also setting a limit on what it can prove. A cross-jurisdictional pattern can inform proposals for legal reform; it cannot resolve the facts or liability in a particular claimant’s case.

Barriers and recommendations

The report identified obstacles that include costs, jurisdictional questions and other legal barriers to bringing claims. Its recommendations were directed to states and addressed changes needed to improve access to judicial remedy. Those recommendations were policy proposals, not binding orders. BIICL’s summary describes the barriers and state-directed focus, while ICAR’s record identifies the report as a collaborative research publication.

Research, not a ruling

The report’s title invokes the third pillar of the UN Guiding Principles framework: access to remedy. Its contribution is to examine whether domestic judicial systems offer practical routes for addressing alleged corporate-related human-rights harms. That framing does not transform its findings into adjudicated conclusions about every company operating across borders.

Our analysis: The report is most useful when treated as a diagnosis of institutional conditions and a basis for evaluating state responses. Its evidence can guide questions about costs, jurisdiction and procedural access; only a competent court can determine liability in a specific dispute. This note summarizes the research record rather than reproducing the report.