The final chapter of the book reflects on its lessons, concluding that the responsiveness of NJMs to the dynamics lying behind grievances – understood as fields of struggle – is key to delivering remedy. This is true whether the relevant NJM is central to that struggle, or whether (as is more often the case) it plays a more peripheral or supportive role within broader processes of decentered regulation. Transnational NJMs may lack coercive power, but they span jurisdictions that state bodies have difficulty regulating. In principle, they have greater capacity to design new approaches as problems arise, benefiting from independence, shorter institutional histories and more capacity to experiment than state bodies, which can experience stronger institutional inertia and political constraints. To strengthen their capacity to build and sustain influence, NJMs should be designed to be nimble, with a range of functions and structures and resourced with staff capable of reading and navigating the deeply contested fields of business and human rights.