Large-scale investment projects often involve contestation over competing notions of ‘development’—from promises of economic growth and integration into global value chains to perspectives that emphasise strong connections between people, territory, culture and way of life. This contestation also echoes diverse theories that have variously conceptualised development as growth, freedom, right or sustainability. This article argues that, in the face of such diversity and complexity, the notion of development that underpins international investment law tends to prioritise economic considerations. In the context of investment disputes, this can marginalise the ideas of development advanced by local actors and indigenous peoples. By connecting human rights and development in immediate terms, ongoing discussions about the right to development can provide an arena to centre ‘peoples’ as the key actor in development processes. But this normative shift would also require ensuring that the wider frameworks of international economic law recognise and provide space for plural notions of development.

This article examines recent measures undertaken by major commercial banks to mitigate and address human rights risks associated with their financial dealings in the arms industry. By reviewing the corporate policies of 20 leading banks that provide financing to top arms manufacturing and exporting companies, the article provides insights into three significant aspects of banks’ efforts: the development of defence sector policies, the implementation of risk assessments for adverse human rights impacts, and the application of exclusion clauses. These measures highlight the increasing recognition by banks of the need to address the ethical, social and human rights implications of financing arms deals, contributing to the broader regulatory and normative framework governing the arms industry.

The quest for corporate accountability remains unabated in the business and human rights (BHR) field. This paper examines the role of multinational corporations (MNCs) and Business Interest Associations (BIA) as entrepreneurs, antipreneurs and saboteurs in setting human rights standards. Through this conceptualization, this paper argues that corporate accountability remains elusive because of corporate actors’ normative power and influence in the BHR norm contestation. It attributes corporate actors’ influence in the norm contestation to the UN multistakeholder design that sees nonstate actors as partners and stakeholders in setting global human rights standards. This paper then argues that to force a norm change in the BHR field, there is a need to rethink the BHR governance model. Corporate actors must be reconceptualized as ‘regulated individuals’ during norm discussions and standard-setting processes.

While divestments and decisions to exit commercial fossil fuel ventures are not new, the imperatives of the energy transition are catalysing such moves at a global industry-wide level, as oil companies position themselves for the future. The international normative framework for business and human rights provides clear guidance on how responsible divestment from fossil fuels should occur; however, in the absence of intergovernmental coordination and regulation, individual business divestment decisions create severe human rights risks. The case of Shell’s divestment from onshore Niger Delta oil production illustrates business and human rights issues relevant to the energy transition.

Multiple independent studies have highlighted the remarkable process of multistakeholder dialogue in the development of Peru’s first National Action Plan (NAP) on business and human rights. While facing several challenges, not least a global pandemic, the process was indeed a success in so far as it opened up a new path for policy making in Peru: that of multistakeholder dialogue including actors who traditionally deeply mistrust each other. This piece describes the key enabling conditions and operational strengths that allowed for such a highly participatory process and, ultimately, resulted in some strong commitments on business and human rights.

Globally, companies are developing and implementing their strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, in line with the Paris Agreement. However, there is also growing recognition and awareness of the potential negative impacts of these activities on human rights. Recent pressure from international normative standards and ESG expectations, emerging legislative developments, and legal precedents are driving companies to consider human rights impacts across their climate action. This piece explores some of the human rights risks associated with the transition to renewable energy; the transformation to regenerative agriculture; the scaling up of the circular economy; and the implementation of nature-based solutions. It then explores the challenges of conducting effective human rights due diligence given the scale and scope of the transitions needed and provides examples of how companies are seeking to respect human rights in their climate action.

The concept of heightened human rights due diligence (hHRDD) is often used to address corporate responsibilities in situations of armed conflict. For companies in these contexts, the first step is to assess whether their activities impact the conflict and its dynamics, and, as a result, whether they are involved in conflict-related human rights abuses. However, companies often find that they have no impact on the conflict. Should companies in these scenarios just focus on regular human rights due diligence (HRDD)? This piece aims to illustrate, based on the example of Ukraine, the human rights challenges that emerge during a war which companies with no influence on the conflict still face and to respond to the question of whether in such situations companies should still engage in hHRDD or continue to conduct HRDD as usual.

After the endorsement of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) by the Human Rights Council on 16 June 2011, 15 March 2024 marked another milestone for transnational corporate governance. That day, a qualified majority of the member states of the European Union (EU) voted in favour of the Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD) setting human rights and environmental obligations for large companies in their global value chains.1 The CSDDD is the first region-wide due diligence legislation, yet it is also a political compromise among EU member states, which civil society and business have been watching closely. This piece explains the main elements of the CSDDD and outlines some of its implications beyond the EU.

The business and human rights (BHR) framework has regularly been considered the superior legal regime of corporate accountability for business-related human rights abuses, which must be both protected from and incorporated into investment treaties. However, investment treaties have surpassed the BHR framework in an important respect: certain investment treaties impose strict international legal obligations, including human rights-related obligations, directly on investors, thereby going beyond the normatively ambiguous corporate responsibility to respect. Investment treaty reform initiatives, including those seeking to align investment treaties with the BHR agenda, should, therefore, take care to avoid inadvertently undoing this advance towards investors’ legal accountability.

Academic defenders of sweatshops argue that disregarding labour rights will result in increased welfare in the developing nations where transnational corporations (TNCs) operate. They argue that TNCs should ignore local labour laws in the best interests of the poor. In this article we criticise this ‘ignore the law’ position regarding sweatshops on three separate grounds. First, it fails to acknowledge the demands for businesses to respect the rule of law as part of the development process. Second, it utilises an inadequate account of voluntary contractual bargaining which overlooks how employment practises operate in sectors prone to utilising sweatshop labour, leading to coercive employment conditions incompatible with human dignity and free choice. Third, it fails to adequately account for labour law and international labour standards, which embody a strong moral conception of dignity at work and observance of fundamental human rights in protecting workers against abuse through the resulting legal duties placed on states and corporate actors. We conclude that poverty reduction requires the support of both private and public actors. Advocating the side-stepping of labour laws distracts from the important work of institution building necessary to protect workers and facilitate economic growth consistent with decent work, sustainable development, fairness and human dignity as embodied in international labour standards.

The debate over home state responsibility for human rights has focused on how home states might use accountability mechanisms to promote respect for human rights among their businesses abroad. However, a set of activists and researchers have opened a new front on the question of home state responsibility by focusing on the activities of Canadian diplomats providing advice and consular services to extractive firms abroad. This work documents how home states can be directly implicated in business and human rights controversies and how home state diplomats can put human rights defenders at increased risk. This paper outlines the growing body of research on the hidden influence of Canadian economic diplomacy in human rights controversies, suggesting a troubling disregard for corporate social responsibility and human rights concerns in these contexts, and making the case for robust accountability mechanisms to influence the conduct of both corporate actors and diplomatic officials.

Following the first-ever rule of law conditionality procedure in September 2022, a resolution was adopted by the European Parliament which declared that Hungary could no longer be considered a full democracy, as it had turned into a ‘hybrid regime of electoral autocracy’. Against this background, this article explains the business and human rights (BHR) gap in Hungary and presents its consequences for the Ukrainian refugee crisis. We first provide a general overview of the role of business in the development and consolidation of the Orbán regime over the past 13 years, highlighting how businesses are both agents and victims of legal and political developments. The paper distinguishes four types of ‘business’: multinational and foreign companies that are direct beneficiaries of the regime; local companies that are direct beneficiaries of the regime; multinational companies that are targets of restrictive and repressive populist rhetoric and economic policies; and the ‘rest’, the remainder that try to avoid becoming targets of oligarchic takeovers. The article also documents how the state and other stakeholders are failing to meet their commitments under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). The next part of the article assesses how companies are responding to the refugee crisis caused by the war in Ukraine, Hungary’s neighbour. If the government does not adopt Pillar I and Pillar III of the UNGPs, what room for manoeuvre do companies have? The focus here is on how companies, domestic and foreign, multinational enterprises (MNEs) and small and medium enterprises (SMEs), engage in humanitarian (and human rights) crisis management.

Batteries containing cobalt will play a central role in the global transition to cleaner energy. Most of the world’s cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). However, the negative human rights image of the minerals sector in the DRC, and the emergence of an inaccurate and exploitative “blood cobalt” narrative risks harming small-scale, ‘artisanal’ producers who rely on this industry for their livelihood. The DRC government, civil society and small-scale producers already have a roadmap for ending child labour and improving working conditions. Countries and companies whose economies and business interests rely on these precious natural resources should engage with this roadmap rather than disengaging from the country’s mining sector altogether.

In 2021, the first-ever Ukrainian business and human rights strategy and action plan were approved. Although a positive political shift, the Government-led endevour failed dismally. This piece explores the drafting process and content of the policy in question, its many shortcomings and the possible way forward as business and human rights becomes even more pressing matter in times of war and in post-conflict context.

The war in the former Yugoslavia produced many highly trained and experienced combatants, some of whom engaged not only in a variety of organized criminal activities such as the illicit trade of natural resources, trafficking and corruption, but also war crimes. In the post-war environment various criminal groups took advantage of post-conflict transition conditions which enabled them to be transformed into legitimate legal entities. The failure to investigate and hold to account those involved in criminal activity meant that demobilized soldiers turned to highly profitable, legally constituted private military and security companies (PMSCs). This is coupled with poorly designed security sector reforms that often fail to enhance effective and accountable security that is respectful of human rights. In recent years, similar transformations of many former combatants and criminal groups into legitimate PMSCs around the globe have raised new concerns about their growing activities across different sectors. This article uses the former Yugoslavia as an example from which to highlight some of the increasingly common problems posed by the creation of private military and security providers globally, as a result of the current uncoordinated processes to prevent armed conflicts. The article reflects on the need to avoid smart sanctions and use other foreign policy tools, while calling for an integrated approach to security sector reform and transitional justice that is necessary for sustainable peace.

This article utilizes a ‘rituals-ritualism’ framework to assess the perils and potentials of relying upon mandatory human rights due diligence (mHRDD) laws to regulate the behaviour of transnational corporations (TNCs). This framework offers a socio-legal perspective that seeks to show how law is both influenced by and influences the social context within which it operates, i.e., the socially embedded operation of law.1 It has been advanced as a useful rubric for assessing whether and how states comply with human rights treaties,2 but can be extended to an assessment of mHRDD laws. Ultimately, this article hypothesizes that the potential regulatory effectiveness of mHRDD laws hinges on the extent to which HRDD obligations are transformed into rituals akin to cultural norms. In the absence of such a transformation, ritualism in HRDD will only further entrench a problematic status quo that has allowed TNCs to externalize the human rights and environmental impacts of their activities.

In its 2019 report to the Human Rights Council, the United Nations (UN) Working Group on business and human rights emphasized that ‘gender-transformative’ remedies can bring ‘change to patriarchal norms and unequal power relations that underpin discrimination, gender-based violence and gender stereotyping’. This article aims to deepen our knowledge of such remediation for women human rights defenders who fight against corporate human rights abuses. Human rights remediation is highly fragmented. This has the advantage that remedies at one level can offer sources of learning for remedies at other levels. This article uses relevant communications that the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders sent to states and corporations jointly with other Special Procedures (including the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences and the UN Working Group on discrimination against women and girls in law and practice) between 2011 and 2020 as a source of learning.

This article opines that corporations should utilize leverage in procurement contracts with states to prevent human rights abuses. Capitalizing on leverage over state business partners should be understood as an under-explored but intriguing dimension to the advancement of human rights. This article uses the example of the Pfizer-Israel procurement contract to provide mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations as a case study. While the Pfizer-Israel contract required Israeli governmental compliance with various laws, and referenced other legal obligations, no reference to human rights, such as the right to informed consent, was referenced in any contractual provision. The failure of Pfizer to insert contractual provisions regarding the Israeli government’s duty to obtain informed consent provides a glaring exemplar of a missed corporate opportunity to fulfil the corporate responsibility to respect human rights.

Investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) has been heavily criticized from the perspective of human rights. However, the potential adverse human rights impacts of ISDS and the responsibilities of businesses to avoid causing or contributing to those impacts under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights have yet to be spelled out. Although states are currently reforming ISDS, progress has been slow, and businesses have an independent responsibility to ensure that their operations do not harm human rights. Against this background, this article unpacks how businesses might contribute to three non-exhaustive examples of potential human rights impacts of ISDS: namely, the chilling effect on human rights regulation, crippling mega-awards and direct impacts on third-party rights. This article breaks new ground by exploring how human rights due diligence could be a useful tool for businesses to identify and address these impacts.

Non-judicial remedies for corporate human rights abuses have a viable and complementary role to judicial remedies in mature jurisdictions, although in Ukraine the ‘bouquet’ of effective remedies is more of a still-life. The national mediation community is gaining momentum and the authors argue that mediation may take place within state-based non-judicial remedies when institutionalized by the office of the Ombudsman. The objective of this article is to scrutinize the rule of law, access to justice, and the effectiveness criteria of the UNGPs with regard to mediation. The authors conclude that mediation can meet all of the effectiveness criteria requirements and special effort should be devoted to addressing the challenges of power imbalances between parties, the confidential nature of mediation and the public demand for transparency, to ensure that mediation outcomes are in accord with internationally recognized human rights. Based on the findings, the authors suggest that a state-based business and human rights mediation scheme, in line with the UNGPs’ effectiveness criteria, should have its own three pillars, namely, accessibility, availability and awareness, with quality assurance as its cornerstone.