After the unanimous endorsement of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) by the Human Rights Council in June 2011, human rights due diligence (HRDD) has become a common currency widely embraced among stakeholders operating in the business and human rights (BHR) field. The UNGPs envisage HRDD to be the primary tool for businesses to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for adverse impacts of their activities on internationally recognized human rights.

The UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs) and their concept of human rights due diligence (HRDD) cannot succeed in their current form, because they reify neoliberalism’s public/private divide. This article establishes this argument across historical, theoretical, and normative dimensions, and charts a new way forward. The UNGPs’ separation of the ‘state duty to protect’ from the ‘corporate responsibility to respect’ reflects a contestable conception of companies as private actors: free to act/transact in any way that is not harmful. This is a problem because harm is often invisible, even when taking an active due-diligence approach. To resolve this, HRDD practices must also be based on the positive value of equality. However, businesses are more than mere agents; they also coordinate production and enable social connections. These structural features reveal a ‘missing fourth pillar’ of the UNGPs: a collective political responsibility to challenge and change our current world order.

The scale and scope of the climate crisis and its drastically worsening impacts means that even as a ‘climate due diligence’ obligation is increasingly taking shape as a dimension of human rights due diligence, there is also growing evidence of the limitations of this emerging norm. This article provides four critiques of climate due diligence based on its insufficiency, its conceptual ambiguity, its operational limitations, and its structural limitations. It argues that these critiques could be addressed by regulatory reform that draw clear ‘red lines’ based on the need to prevent the development of any new fossil fuel and address the ‘corporate capture’ of regulatory institutions by the fossil fuel industry. Additionally, it calls for reparations to ensure effective access to a remedy for existing and potential future climate-related human rights impacts that business has caused or contributed to.

The take-up of mandatory human rights due diligence (HRDD) initiatives by states is continuously gaining momentum. There are now numerous states adopting some form of HRDD laws. While corporations being duly diligent in respecting human rights is a positive step towards addressing problems of business and human rights, these HRDD initiatives on their own may only be a form of window-dressing, that is, enabling states to put a smart spin on their efforts to address business and human rights issues without addressing some of the root causes of that predicament. As a result, HRDD laws are likely to be a helpful, but insufficient tool for addressing corporate abuse of human rights. One reason for this is because the root cause of many business and human rights problems is the structural elements and goals of corporate law facilitates corporate violations of human rights. So long as states fail to transform the way in which corporations operate – in part, by reconceptualizing corporate law – even the best drafted HRDD laws will be inadequate to halt corporate harms.

This article argues that the trend to zoom into mandatory human rights due diligence (mHRDD) as the sole solution to corporate abuse is misleading. In fact, it might risk missing entirely the main point which, as set out in this article, should be creating economic systems that enable rights-based and rights-driven business models. A small, but growing number of scholarly articles address the economic, fiscal and regulatory institutions needed to create an enabling environment for the fulfilment of human rights. These policy areas constitute what some of us understand as a ‘rights-based economy’ or ‘rights-enabling economies’. State-level efforts would be much more effective in promoting substantive equality if driven by a rights-based approach rather than a market logic. This article contends that while ensuring comprehensive mHRDD is in place as a preventative and mitigation tool, states must also push for transformative macroeconomic policies based on human rights principles as a way to fundamentally change business models.

This article studies human rights due diligence by private corporate creditors in the context of sovereign debt restructurings. First, the legal bases of this specific due diligence are presented and systematized. Then, by providing empirical statistical evidence, the article analyses whether haircuts applied by creditors across countries regularly consider the social and economic human rights situation of the debtor countries in question, as part of creditors’ due diligence. Also, the main characteristics of bond markets that contribute to understanding the asymmetric power relationship between private lenders and sovereign borrowers are described. Finally, Argentina’s latest debt restructurings are studied in depth to determine whether human rights were taken into account when agreeing on the size of haircuts. From quantitative and qualitative data, this article concludes that the haircuts agreed by creditors are regularly not sensitive to the social and economic human rights situation of debtor populations or to the impact that debt agreements could have on them.

Brazil is a large exporter of commodities that supply global value chains. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), in 2019 commodity exports entailed 8.4 per cent of Brazilian Gross Domestic Product.1 Although commodities exportation is important for the Brazilian economy, their production or extraction often causes human rights harms and environmental damages.

Disinformation, hate speech and political polarization are evident problems of the growing relevance of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in current societies. To address these issues, decision-makers and regulators worldwide discuss the role of digital platforms in content moderation and in curtailing harmful content produced by third parties. However, intermediary liability rules require a balance that avoids the risks arising from the circulation at scale of harmful content and the risks of censorship if excessive burdens force content providers to adopt a risk-averse posture in content moderation. This piece examines the trend of altering intermediary liability models to include ‘duty of care’ provisions, describing three models in Europe, North America and South America. We discuss how these models are being modified to include greater monitoring and takedown burdens on internet content providers. We conclude with a word of caution regarding this balance between censorship and freedom of expression.

Legal action by communities affected by climate change against high carbon corporate emitters is on the rise. At the same time, with the acceleration of a transition to a net-zero carbon economy, communities impacted by the implementation and operation of renewable energy projects are increasingly challenging shortcomings in the shift to renewable energy through ‘just transition litigation’. This strategy aims to ensure that respect for human rights is at the heart of the new energy paradigm, and that human rights abuses by the fossil fuel and mining sectors are not replicated. Progressive legislative reforms may also contribute to ensuring a fast and fair transition. This article examines how legal action and legislation may provide communities and rights-holders with pathways to climate justice – and sheds light on the need for a rights-centred approach by corporate actors and governments to the new energy transition.

The United States Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization brought to the forefront the intersections between technology and reproductive rights. As the country grappled with the impact of Dobbs on reproductive rights, digital and human rights experts warned that the vast amounts of data collected by companies could now be used to target and punish people seeking or facilitating access to abortions. This is the most recent manifestation of the negative impact technology can have on women, girls and persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, and represents a global challenge for companies that collect, store, share and process user data. To fulfill their responsibility to respect human rights, companies should take steps to prevent the risks associated with collecting, storing, sharing and processing user data, and adapt these steps to respond to emerging risks, such as those now posed by the Dobbs decision.

Since 2017, the government of the People’s Republic of China has heightened repression of Uyghur and other minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). Repressive tactics involve family separations, mass incarceration, forced labour and cultural indoctrination. This has been accompanied, in recent years, with an aggressive industrialization of the area which relies heavily on the forced labour of Uyghur and other minorities. The automotive industry, in particular, has expanded into the region. This piece describes China’s push of heavy industry into XUAR and recent findings by Sheffield Hallam University and NomoGaia of abuses against Uyghurs and their links to the global automotive sector. It then explains the methodology employed by NomoGaia in its co-authored report with scholars from Sheffield Hallam University for linking abuses in the XUAR to global brands, and proposes a way forward for the industry.

In January 2022, the UK National Contact Point (UK NCP) issued a final statement in a specific instance claim brought against Bonsucro, a multi-stakeholder initiative (MSI) that aims to promote sustainable production of sugarcane. The claim alleged that Bonsucro had failed to comply with the OECD Guidelines because it had not carried out appropriate due diligence towards one of its members, accused of human rights abuses. While NCP complaints had been brought against MSIs and certifiers before, the UK NCP’s final statement is the first to recognize the leverage MSIs have over members due to their ability to deny membership and related reputational benefits to companies wishing to show sustainability logos, and to affirm their responsibility to use this leverage to avoid abuses. The statement sheds light on the accountability of actors involved in private voluntary sustainability standard systems, with possible impacts on other actors such as third-party certifiers.

This piece aims to assess the potential contribution and the scope and structure of a Catalan Centre for Business and Human Rights to supervise the fulfilment of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights and to hold businesses operating in Catalonia accountable for human rights abuses within the autonomous community and abroad. It also examines how this proposal fits into the regional and national regulatory landscape for mandatory human rights due diligence.

The ‘Mind the Gap’ project has created a toolkit for civil society to hold companies to account for their adverse impacts. The toolkit sets out two distinct but interlinked frameworks: harmful corporate strategies resulting in the avoidance of responsibility for adverse impacts, and civil society counter-strategies to overcome these harmful strategies. Both frameworks capture the unique experiences of the Mind the Gap project’s global consortium partners and civil society actors focused on corporate accountability. The project responds to a need to close governance gaps that arise in the context of the current global economic system. It is only by identifying and understanding harmful corporate strategies that civil society can effectively advocate for corporate accountability and the closure of governance gaps.