Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-mmrw7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T17:20:41.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epistemic Justice, Co-Production and HREDD: A Three-Step Agenda for Advancing Business and Human Rights Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2025

Ana Cardia Open the ORCID record for Ana Cardia [Opens in a new window]
Ana Cardia*
Affiliation:
Professor at Mackenzie Presbyterian University (São Paulo, Brazil) . Ph.D. in international law from PUC-SP. Postdoctoral Fellow in international law at PUC-PR. Member of the Global Business and Human Rights Scholars Association and Board Advisor at the Latin American Academy of Human Rights and Business. Member of the Governance Committee for the Teaching Business and Human Rights Forum. Consultant in ESG, Business and Human Rights, and Sustainability.
*
Email: anaclaudiaruy@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study presents three key steps to enable the Business and Human Rights (BHR) research agenda to promote and advance greater applicability to the emerging challenges in the field. Drawing on research conducted on BHR sources (almost exclusively by Brazilian and Spanish-speaking authors), this article aims to demonstrate the need for further BHR scholarship to simultaneously: (i) identify and remedy epistemic biases through reflexive engagement with a victim-centred scholarship from the Global South that recentres BHR research on the perspective of affected communities; (ii) move from consideration to co-production by grounding BHR theory in practice via participatory methodologies and dialogue between communities, researchers and corporations; and (iii) by aligning with steps one and two, recontextualize Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) research into an integrated Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence (HREDD) approach that incorporates environmental and climate dimensions and ensure meaningful, victim-centred engagement with affected communities.

Keywords

BHR Scholarshipclimate changeGlobal Southhuman rights and environmental due diligencevictim-centred approach

Information

Type
Scholarly Article
Information
Business and Human Rights Journal , Volume 10 , Special Issue 2-3: Business and human rights: Looking ahead through the eyes of emerging voices , October 2025 , pp. 420 - 433
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

I. Introduction

‘Emerging Voices’ in the field of business and human rights (BHR) are undoubtedly privileged. Their knowledge is built upon the wisdom of all those who preceded them and lived in times as complex, if not more so, than the present (depending on one’s relative understanding of complexity), yet with persistently enduring challenges to protecting human dignity.

Over the past decades, BHR research has witnessed significant theoretical advancements across various areas of knowledge, including law and international relations, business administration and economics, environmental protection, and even the psychological impacts on vulnerable groups. These research areas have been fundamentally constructed based on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and other recognized international guidelines in this field.

However, considering the changes and challenges posed by the current global socioeconomic context, such as the climate emergency, human rights abuses throughout value chains, the use of artificial intelligence and the growing precariousness of labour practices, as well as political influences that have encouraged a backlash against human rights protection, it is time for this knowledge to interconnect and unite with insights from different parts of the world (often relegated to second, third, or fourth tiers) to bring the changes so meticulously conceived in theory into practice.

This article, therefore, aims to contribute to the BHR research agenda in a critical, practical, and integrative manner, acknowledging and honouring those who paved the way for this moment, yet understanding that progress also requires the humility to recognize that some unconscious and often exclusionary biases must be reevaluated.

Three essential steps will be presented for developing a more effective BHR research agenda, essentially focused on the centrality of the suffering of human rights victims, who are the primary motivators behind all efforts and endeavours aimed at achieving the desired socio-economic and environmental transformation for states and private organizations. With this in mind, the article will (i) provide a deeper focus on BHR research produced by Global South scholars related to the centrality of the victims-suffering to correct epistemic imbalances; (ii) integrate Global North and Global South BHR theory and practice to generate methodologically grounded and actionable insights in BHR research; and (iii) recontextualize human rights due diligence (HRDD) research to address environmental and climate-related harms and to operationalize meaningful engagement with affected individuals and communities (considering steps one and two), by embracing a concept of human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD). These steps will be complementary, where the evolution of each subsequent step will be effective with the active implementation of the preceding one.

The theory of the centrality of the victim’s suffering was established in separate opinions delivered by Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, then judge of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in the judgments of the cases Blake v. Guatemala, Villagrán Morales et al. v. Guatemala, Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, and Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Footnote 1 In all these opinions, Cançado Trindade emphasized the importance of genuinely understanding and respecting the victims’ integration into their social environments, as well as the specific challenges that arise from it, along with providing full and appropriate reparations.

In this sense, this article will employ the inductive method to reach its main conclusions, applying both primary and secondary research sources, grounded in official documents from international organizations and state and supranational bodies related to the BHR agenda, as well as scholarly work on the subject from different branches of knowledge. In seeking coherence with the steps presented in this work and to honour many voices that are often under-read and unheard in Brazil and Latin America, most of the cited materials will come from Portuguese and Spanish-speakingFootnote 2 researchers.

II. From Epistemic Bias to Substantive Consideration: Rigorous and Reflexive Engagement with Victim-Centred Global South Scholarship

Step One is essential for advancing research in Business and Human Rights. When referencing studies that pertain to communities and workers within value chains residing in the Global South, Surya Deva and Talya Swissa assert that ‘very little of this is carried out by researchers who are physically based in those countries’.Footnote 3 Indeed, as will be seen in many references cited throughout this article, a significant number of researchers from the Global South produce materials related to this theme by leveraging knowledge developed in leading research centres in the Global North. The concept of ‘Global North’ and ‘Global South’ in this article notably does not concern the territorial-spatial boundaries that characterize global geography, but rather a relational and political classification.Footnote 4

Moreover, the commitment to centring victims concerns the experiences and priorities of affected communities as rights holders. This is conceptually distinct from claims about who authors BHR scholarship. While scholars from the Global South are underrepresented, their positionality does not automatically coincide with the interests or experiences of victims. The objective of this article is to acknowledge the work of Global South BHR researchers who are not only geographically located in jurisdictions where most human rights abuses occur, but also with research focused on a victim-centred approach. Also, rather than treating victims as a subset of ‘stakeholders’, this article focuses on affected communities as rights-holders whose lived experiences are indispensable to evidencing harm, assessing remediation, and shaping accountability pathways.

A substantial body of research, particularly published in languages other than English—such as Portuguese or Spanish, idioms that will be privileged in this article—is often not read by researchers from these regions, with the language barrier frequently cited as the primary cause of this issue. Interestingly, however, scholars from different countries that characterize the Global South often make considerable efforts to read and study texts in various languages, expanding their knowledge to engage in dialogues with Global North research centres. In this sense, the wide variety of translation tools available (especially with the growing application of artificial intelligence) should be proactively applied by BHR scholars from all regions of the Global North.

In academic dissemination, the ‘power imbalance’Footnote 5 in Global North and Global South BHR research still prevails. Sometimes, articles from Global South scholars might be rejected by Global North journals’ editors since they are not aligned with themes pertinent to their research demands. This should be a point of attention for the call for papers issued by journals across several fields of knowledge.Footnote 6 Also, the strictness regarding publications only in English often poses significant barriers to work acceptance, particularly considering that socio-economic vulnerabilities manifest in the advanced technical knowledge of other languages and the use of available translation tools. Pursuing research in English and securing platforms for discourse on the subject remains a privilegeFootnote 7 afforded to only a few scholars from the Global South.

Furthermore, unconscious or affinity biasesFootnote 8 of reviewers in journals and conferences often lead to the underestimation of the content presented, favouring approvals that resonate more closely with their scopes of research. Despite a recently (and fortunately) growing openness in various research spaces for diverseFootnote 9 Global South scholars who genuinely explore in their research their local and regional realities with a victim-centred approach, such studies trace their origins to times preceding this academic openness movement. This demonstrates that only in recent times the Global North has timidly accepted the need for openly listening to researchers from other parts of the world and eventually overcoming negative beliefs and stereotypes about academics from the Global South.Footnote 10

As Deva and Swissa suggest that perhaps the UNGPs would have been written differently had the drafting pen been in the hands of someone from the Global South,Footnote 11 the reality remains that they were not crafted in that way, partly because very few scholars from the Global South that are engaged in empirical or on the ground research were consulted during the drafting of not only this instrument but many others related to the subject and human rights in general. Meaningful consultation with the abovementioned Global South researchers in this context would both bridge their positionality toward the lived experiences of potential victims or affected communities, maintaining the centrality of their suffering, and delivering a more accurate assessment of the international pressures, incentives, and constraints that structure the negotiation and conclusion of agreements of this kind.

The result is a tendency toward doctrinalism and theory—often linked to classical Global North BHR scholarship—at the expense of empirically grounded, context-sensitive engagement with diverse lived realities. In this context, it is also worth highlighting normative instruments, such as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD),Footnote 12 drafted by the European Union and approved by the European Parliament and the Council of Europe in 2024.Footnote 13 Despite its central focus on due diligence in supply chains, its implementation method has not adequately considered the individuals and groups involved and the specificities of the regions possibly impacted by the regulation.Footnote 14

The contrast also becomes apparent in practice when examining the negotiations around formulating a treaty on BHR, which stemmed from efforts by Global South countries.Footnote 15 Without delving into the debate over its potential effectiveness, the need for active participation by Global North states is evident, especially considering the pendular and predominantly political and economic relations concerning the treaty agenda.Footnote 16

A good example of a paradigmatic dialogue of Global South scholars is one among BHR Scholars in Latin America and their engagement with the Escazú Agreement, a legally binding regional mechanism that guarantees the effective realization of three access rights in socioenvironmental matters: access to information, public participation, and access to justice.Footnote 17 Although some of its implementation mechanisms need some adjustments and proper developmentFootnote 18 and its interpretation is also subject to analysis regarding its practical applicability in climate disputes,Footnote 19 it is the first treaty to consolidate environmental and social participation within a single instrument, reinforcing the previous argument that such regional architecture became possible precisely because it adopts a human rights-centred lens on individuals and communities affected by a wide range of corporate projects (mostly enabled by Global South States with Global North companies’ ventures and influence), as well as human rights defenders and civil society.Footnote 20 It is also important to stress that the Agreement was negotiated and designed before subsequent pronouncements by International Courts (including the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice) on the correlation between the adverse impacts of climate change with human rights violations, as developed in Section 3 of this article.

The lack of prior deep engagement with victim-centred BHR scholars from the Global South does not arise from a scarcity of researchers or regional studies on BHR. Instead, it centres on the willingness of researchers to learn, openness to dialogue, and recognition of the work produced by these scholars, which offers distinct yet complementary contributions to the theories developed by the Global North (what is called in this paper as ‘epistemic justice’). If Global South scholars who conduct robust, context-sensitive research grounded in local realities and attentive to the centrality of victims’ suffering were read, studied, and genuinely considered, they could—indeed, they can—by integrating local and regional approaches to tackle global issues, achieve the balance sought for decades in the regulations governing BHR norms,Footnote 21 principles, and practices.

III. From Consideration to Co-Production: Grounding BHR Theory in Practice

Step Two could be seen as potentially controversial if read without adequate contextualization. The argument does not deny the independent importance of BHR theory. Still, it states that its validity conditions and operational contours emerge through engagement with practice, particularly in Global South contexts and in addressing environmental and climate-related harms. A different position would constitute a serious disregard for the theoretical processes that frequently produce valuable insights into the field’s developments and have historically constituted the majority of BHR scholarship.

However, it becomes increasingly difficult to conceive of innovative and effective solutions to the challenges imposed by day-to-day corporate practice without a better understanding of its processes and business models across different sectors. In this sense, practice should be seen as an evidentiary and design field through which theoretical propositions are operationalized, stress-tested, and revised. Contemplating the realities of diverse individuals and communities involved throughout the entire value chain and decision-making process is essential to evaluating compliance with existing norms or even rethinking international, state, or corporate policies and regulatory frameworks related to BHR.

In this sense, building on the imperative to genuinely consider Global South scholarship, this section contends that BHR theory is best specified, stress-tested, and refined in and through practice, via meaningful engagement with affected communities and in dialogue with business practices (what is being called in this article as ‘Co-Production’). Paying close attention to these dynamics facilitates the comprehension of the market logic behind such processes, the nuances of commercial relationships not found in textbooks or university classrooms, and, more importantly, the interests guiding market decision-makers and those exerting pressure on States and other entities to conform to rules to their interests or reshape regulations accordingly.

The collaboration among professionals from different fields of knowledge proves highly beneficial in addressing these challenges.Footnote 22 Specifically within the BHR legal academic community, there is a critical need to engage with businesses, entrepreneurship, and disciplines directly connected to these areas.Footnote 23 Although the UNGPs constitute a norm (broadly understood), offering fertile ground for legal theorists, their principal architect, John Ruggie, maintained direct engagement with corporate and market dynamics to ensure their feasibility.Footnote 24

Theorizing systematically about rules without a concrete understanding of how businesses operate or of local and global market logic only (i) widens the gap between actors across different sectors, (ii) in some cases, exacerbates private sector disinterest in academic research and, more importantly, (iii) does not contribute to the creation of innovative solutions for standing problems and, consequently, new business models.Footnote 25

Existing BHR academic networks also benefit significantly from integrating knowledge across disciplines, and they must continue to work towards the expansion of transdisciplinary spaces. This article emphasizes the need for more events, research, and publications that promote dialogue between diverse disciplines and sectors.

Case studiesFootnote 26 offer rich opportunities for learning as they reflect the necessity of closer dialogue with all real-world realities (in public, private, and civil society spacesFootnote 27). Studies conducted by the Geneva Centre for Business and Human Rights, for example, merit particular note. They combine conceptual analysis with fieldwork to generate first-hand insights into the experiences of affected individuals and communities across sectoral supply chains. Building on this approach, this article considered case studies of Veja’s business model and the diamond value chain in Belgium.Footnote 28 In both cases, fieldwork was undertaken in countries in the Global South, attending to the experiences of individuals and communities affected or potentially affected by corporate operations, alongside the perspectives of company representatives. The Centre’s analysis also reviewed Global South scholarship grounded in regional, victim-centred research, as per Step One.

Academic research improves in quality when it stems from empirical questions and maintains an awareness of the challenges of day-to-day practice.Footnote 29 In addition, to cultivate an internal corporate culture committed to human rights protection as outlined by the UNGPs and to dialogue with the centrality of the suffering of the victim, all individuals and communities should be unified in their interpretive frameworks and communication dialects.

Step Two, to be effective, must necessarily consider Step One. For integration between theory and practice across various fields of knowledge to be successful, research that considers diverse perspectives from Global South scholars within their regional and local knowledge of human rights challenges must be incorporated.Footnote 30 The development or refinement of existing theories should provide real and effective solutions to global challenges.Footnote 31 Theory pursued as an end in itself (or the mere ego of its creators) cannot be the prevailing norm on a planet facing the dire consequences of the climate emergency,Footnote 32 where communities endure daily assaults on their dignity across production chains (especially in the Global South) and where rules, often crafted without the involvement of a significant portion of the global population (which has even been indirectly labelled as ‘uncivilized’ in some international instrumentsFootnote 33), are endlessly analyzed. These rules, typically ignored by many participants responsible for their creation, have left the Global South disproportionately bearing the burden yet again.

Finally, this also underscores the need for BHR scholarship to support the design and refinement of consultation mechanisms with rights-holders within HRDD, drawing not only on established normative frameworks (UNGPs, OECD Guidelines, ILO Conventions) but also on grounded empirical engagement. Methodologically, this requires fieldwork (such as interviews, focus groups, participatory mapping, and, where appropriate, ethnography), translation and interpretation support, as well as community validation of findings.Footnote 34 Deeper empirical integration with affected individuals, communities, and economic actors enables local appraisal of context-dependent issues, as climate change impacts on communities, a topic that will be addressed and developed in the following section.

IV. From HRDD to HREDD: Recontextualizing Human Rights Due Diligence Research to Integrate Environmental and Climate Dimensions and Meaningful Engagement with Affected Communities with a Victim-Centred Perspective

HRDD was introduced by John Ruggie as a key aspect of the second pillar of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.Footnote 35 Since then, it has been explored in scholarly articles,Footnote 36 nationalFootnote 37 and recently in supranational normative developments, such as the CSDDD, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR).Footnote 38

Effective implementation of HRDD processes often falters on the technical applicability of the standards that define them, which, as previously discussed, are frequently misaligned with the lived realities of individuals and communities (particularly in the Global South) affected by diverse corporate operations. Moreover, as noted above, fieldwork co-produced by researchers from the Global North and Global South, with dialogue with rights holders and companies, often reveals empirical issues that should be considered in an integrated manner, such as temperature shifts driven by climate change and their effects on the human rights of impacted communities. Accordingly, this section brings together the preceding components: the need to accord greater weight to Global South scholarship that adopts a victim-centred approach within HRDD, alongside a practical assessment of the harms associated with one of the most acute threats to planetary survival—climate change and its adverse impacts on the planet and on communities and their ways of life.

Climate change has already raised temperatures across different parts of the globe, generating droughts, floods, blurred seasonal patterns, persistent pollution, and collapses across a wide range of ecosystems, resulting in destruction and drastic changes in living conditions, especially, though not exclusively, among vulnerable groups.Footnote 39 The focus of this article is grounded in recent developments in various regions of the world that have impacted people and local businesses. In 2024, for example, the 2024 floods in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, which severely affected communities, local commerce, and the population,Footnote 40 were primarily caused by climate change.Footnote 41

Scientists contend that human activity has triggered irreversible changes in the planet’s biological and physical processes, characterizing this profound intervention as a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene.Footnote 42 From this period—whose precise delineation remains the subject of technical-scientific debate—‘the capacity for human interference in the environment is comparable to geological influences on the basic functioning of the Earth system’.Footnote 43 For the former President of Ireland and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, climate change has ceased to be a mere ‘scientific abstraction’ and has become a genuinely ‘human-made phenomenon’ with a direct impact on humanity.Footnote 44

The World Economic Forum identifies extreme weather events as the foremost global risks over the next decade.Footnote 45 These risks are directly connected to state and corporate responses. This section, therefore, underscores the need to strengthen HRDD mechanisms and processes through faithful implementation of the preceding steps, while also taking into account the scale of environmental impacts on the life, health, and safety of affected communities.

This section recommends of greater scholarly discussion of this issue, particularly contemplating the previous steps. This requires recognition that (i) the notion of HRDD, as originally framed, must be broadened and renamed to include environmental and climate-related dimensions that directly impact the communities involved in such processes, and (ii) central to the renamed human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD) process is the need to move the concept of meaningful engagement with affected communities beyond mere theoretical analysis to effectively reflect the real-life engagement with these groups and their environments, with attention to their inherent socioeconomic and political particularitiesFootnote 46—remarkably those unique to regions in the Global South.

A. HRDD Should be Reframed and Renamed to Include Environmental and Climate Dimensions that Implicate Communities in Daily Practice

The intersection of human rights concerns with environmental and climate-related priorities is vital. The United Nations has repeatedly emphasized this connection in various institutional reports over the years. In 2021, the UN Human Rights Council recognized that access to a healthy environment is a basic human right, highlighting the critical interplay of social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.Footnote 47 This document highlights that the realization of other internationally recognized human rights depends on the existence of robust climate conditions, which must be preserved for current and future generations. It calls for unwavering cooperation among States and various rights holders to create and sustain these vital environmental conditions.

Building on this foundation, the UN General Assembly in 2022 reinforced this message, declaring that ‘environmental degradation, climate change, loss of biodiversity, desertification, and unsustainable development’ represent the most significant and immediate threats to the ability of present and future generations to fully enjoy their human rights.Footnote 48 Furthermore, a resolution released in early 2023 underlined the need to address climate change sustainably, viewing it as a fundamental step towards dismantling the inequalities between developed and developing nations.Footnote 49

In 2023, the UN General Assembly called upon the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to opine on (i) the obligations of States to safeguard ‘the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions’ for the benefit of both present and future generations; and (ii) the legal repercussions for States that fail to uphold these obligations, particularly concerning developing island nations and the people impacted by the adverse effects of climate change.Footnote 50

Similarly, this interrelationship is central to climate change-related cases being decided in several courts at different levels (national, regional and international),Footnote 51 reflecting a common understanding and progressively promoting a dialogue in normative and substantive construction of this subject—effectively advancing towards Trans-territoriality.Footnote 52

In July 2025, the ICJ issued its Advisory OpinionFootnote 53 affirming that States hold a legal obligation to prevent harm to the climate system from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This initiative, although not legally binding, marks a significant turning point in the international legal landscape, redefining the responsibilities of States in protecting the environment within their territories as well as their legal responsibilities when environmental violations occur, either committed by their action or by their omission in cases of abusive corporate action.Footnote 54

This connection is also evident in cases discussed at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights with the request for an advisory opinion on the climate emergency and human rights submitted by the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Chile in 2023,Footnote 55 issued in 2025Footnote 56 emphasizing that ‘the right to a healthy climate falls within the scope of human rights protections under the American Convention on Human Rights’.Footnote 57 It is also evident at the European Court of Human Rights in cases Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland, Carême v France and Duarte Agostinho and Others v Portugal and 32 Others.Footnote 58

Climate litigationFootnote 59 is increasingly prominent,Footnote 60 with cases showing extraterritorial reach, including examples as Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell PLC Footnote 61 and Luciano Lliuya v RWE AG. Footnote 62 In most instances, corporations are directly or indirectly involved in the violations, impacting the environment and, consequently, the local communities inhabiting the affected areas. Coincidentally, concerning the first point presented in this article, the cases mentioned were and are being judged in countries of the Global North for abuses and violations of human rights and the environment committed by companies originally based in those States, but when operating in jurisdictions of the Global South.

Building on this understanding, and in line with the second pillar of the UNGPs while engaging with norms, judicial decisions, and recent developments, it is appropriate for companies to better incorporate environmental risks into their external auditing and internal risk processes. Specifically, alongside assessing risks to human rights based on the severity and likelihood of violations (as per the UNGPs), companies must also consider how environmental impacts affect the dignity of identified communities and rights holders. The intrinsic link between environment and community logically necessitates revisiting and revising the terminology of HRDD to HREDD, with the term ‘environmental’ logically encompassing climate-related risks.Footnote 63

Though this is primarily a terminological and theoretical shift, it has significant practical implications, particularly for corporate due diligence processes and advisory services. The integration of human rights and environmental risk assessments into companies’ risk management frameworks is essential for the success of HREDD. An intertwined perspective aligns with the principles developed under John Ruggie’s UNGPsFootnote 64 and dialogues with broader international frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and other disclosure regulations guiding the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) agenda.Footnote 65

Therefore, BHR scholars must prioritize integrating social, environmental, and climate issues when assessing impacts on human rights. This approach will offer a more comprehensive understanding of the realities faced by vulnerable groups that are disproportionately affected by corporate activities and their consequences for the planet, as will be seen in the following section.

V. Amid the Key Steps of HREDD, Meaningful Engagement with Affected Communities Must Move Beyond Superficial Theoretical Analysis to Address Practical Realities under the Centrality of the Victims Theory

Having briefly addressed the technical and practical rationale for reframing HREDD terminology, another step concerns the development of meaningful engagement as a central element of the process. Article 18 of the UNGPs addresses this issue with a procedure of ‘meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups and other relevant stakeholders’.Footnote 66 BHR literature on this subject is extensive, although it might often reproduce certain biases discussed under Steps One and Two. In other words, understanding what constitutes meaningful engagement will only become effective when: (i) the unique characteristics of affected groups are considered in light of their respective realities—this includes the perspectives and experiences of the Global South; and (ii) practical knowledge (considering company internal projects already based on the UNGPsFootnote 67) is integrated to reflect these realities, along with evidence informed by direct engagement with such groups.

This debate also touches on the broader structural injusticesFootnote 68 underlying rights holders’ positions as either potential or actual victims of human rights abuses perpetrated by corporations. Understanding such dynamics and developing or improving effective techniquesFootnote 69 that recognize the centrality of victim theory to engage rights holders play a decisive role in gathering precise and realistic information necessary for implementing the UNGPs.

If the theory of the centrality of the victim’s suffering is directly applied to mitigating measures addressing human rights violations emerging from HREDD processes, companies could gain deeper insights into the lived realities of rights-holders and their respective environmental and climate impacts. This, in turn, could enable the adjustment of their production methods to these specific contexts or to provide the necessary support to potentially affected communities, mitigating any impacts on their dignity.

As such, Step Three emphasizes the importance of connecting research to active, respectful listening to the voices of affected rights holders and communities across different regions and contexts. In this regard, documenting living experiences can be strengthened through empirical research, with some elements as explored in Step Two. Combined with the foundations laid in Steps One and Two, these aspects enhance BHR research and practice, facilitating the processes elaborated in Step Three.

Environmental and human rights risk assessments in corporate due diligence processes must transcend a cost-benefit analysis of potential mitigation and remediation efforts for identified violations,Footnote 70 with proper engagement with the real experiences of affected communities, placing the likelihood of their suffering at the forefront. By doing so, companies can cultivate a resilient organizational cultureFootnote 71 that effectively confronts the global socio-environmental challenges with empirical indicators and promotes real dialogue.Footnote 72

VI. Conclusion

This article did not aim at creating a new theory, but rather to logically organize processes and provide constructive critiques to facilitate greater integration of processes related to BHR research, with a commitment to effective dialogue between Global North and Global South academics in a victim-centred approach and a more comprehensive look at impacts in BHR, such as climate change.

It is widely recognized that research is often shaped by scholars’ personal experiences, contexts, and aspirations. Consequently, the propositions presented in this article are an invitation to broaden individual perspectives, cultivate awareness, and embrace an understanding of diverse points of view, contexts, including a disciplined readiness to interrogate assumptions and to operate beyond intellectual and practical comfort zones.

The sequentially connected steps proposed in this article promote a cultural shift and a transformation in the research profile within the BHR agenda in Pillars Two and Three of the UNGPs. A progressively closer alignment with real-world problems bridges the gap between academia, the market, and rights holders who continue to demand greater support in numerous spaces within civil society. Amplifying the long-muted voices of the Global South (victims and scholars), enhancing a fruitful dialogue between environmental matters and social demands when addressing climate change impacts and transforming current business models are goals that must be pursued concurrently by new and established voices in BHR.

Competing interests

The author declares none.

References

1 Atchabahian, Ana Cláudia Ruy Cardia, ‘Transterritoriality as a Theory to Hold Corporations Accountable for Human Rights Violations: The Application of Its Principles in Vedanta and Nevsun Cases’ (2022) 19:2 Revista de Direito Internacional, 78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 This article adopts the term ‘Global South’ from the perspective of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) as a ‘geopolitical, cultural, and epistemic’ definition, with impacts on power relations that extend to academic research. Pahuja, Sundhya, Decolonizing International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Collins, Patricia Hill, Interseccionalidade translation Souza, Rane (São Paulo: Boitempo, 2021) 138 Google Scholar. Badin, Michelle Ratton Sanchez, Morosini, Fábio, Giannattasio, Arthur Roberto Capella (Orgs.), Direito internacional: leituras críticas (São Paulo: Almedina, 2019)Google Scholar. Kleber Aparecido da Silva, ‘Que “Sul Global” é esse?’ (21 October 2024), noticias.unb.br (accessed 8 February 2025).

3 Surya Deva, Talya Swissa, ‘Need human rights research? Talk to the Global South’, Context News (10 December 2024), www.context.news (accessed 8 February 2025).

4 ‘Global North’ will be adopted as opposed to ‘Global South’, also denoting a Eurocentric stance defined by Samir Amin as ‘a culturalism’ of an ‘anti-universalist’ nature, because it is not interested in discovering any potential laws of human evolution, but ‘presents itself as a universalism, as it proposes to all the imitation of the Western model as the only solution to the challenges of our time’. Amin, Samir, O eurocentrismo: crítica de uma ideologia, translation Barradas, Ana (São Paulo: Lavrapalavra, 2021) 11 Google Scholar. Badin, Michelle Ratton Sanchez, Morosini, Fábio, Giannattasio, Arthur Roberto Capella (Orgs.), Direito internacional: leituras críticas (São Paulo: Almedina, 2019)Google Scholar.

5 Ibid.

6 Naidu, Thirusha, Cartmill, Carrie, Swanepoel, Sunitha, Whitehead, Cynthia Ruth, ‘Shapeshifters: Global South scholars and their tensions in border-crossing to Global North journals’ (2024) 9 BMJ Global Health e014420 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

7 Moreira, Adilson José, O que é discriminação? (Belo Horizonte: Letramento, Casa do Direito, Justificando, 2017) 145 Google Scholar.

8 Kerr, Cris, Viés inconsciente (São Paulo: Literare Books International, 2021) 95 Google Scholar.

9 ‘Diverse’ in this case meaning Diversity and Inclusion. Van Buren, Harry J. III, Karam, Charlotte and Afiouni, Fida, ‘Editorial: Producing Actionable Knowledge About Marginalized Populations and Communities: A Challenge to Editors and Journals’ (2024) 43:2 Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 300–312 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 G. von Richthofen, A. A. Gümüsay, ‘Impact Without Imposition: What Role for Northern Academics in the Global South?’, Stanford Social Innovation Review (19 January 2023), https://ssir.org/articles/entry/impact_without_imposition_what_role_for_northern_academics_in_the_global_south# (accessed 8 February 2025).

11 Surya Deva, Talya Swissa, ‘Need human rights research? Talk to the Global South’, Context News (10 December 2024), www.context.news (accessed 8 February 2025).

12 European Council, ‘Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence: Council Gives Its Final Approval’ (24 May 2024), www.consilium.europa.eu (accessed 12 June 2024). Bueno, Nicolas, Bernaz, Nadia, Holly, Gabrielle, Martin-Ortega, Olga, ‘The EU Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD): The Final Political Compromise’ (2024) 9(2) Business and Human Rights Journal 294–300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 This article will not explore the discussions held in 2025 at the European Commission to simplify European rules regarding human rights due diligence (the so called ‘omnibus proposal’). For details on this topic, see European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Competitiveness Compass for the EU (Brussels: European Commission, 29 January 2025).

14 Kevin E. Davis, Roy Germano, Lauren E. May, ‘Did the Global South Have Their Say on EU Supply Chain Regulation?’ (2024) NYU Law and Economics Research Paper Series No. 24-13. Julián Gutiérrez Martínez and Berta Flores Aricò, ‘On the Path to Corporate Accountability: The Global South and the New European Due Diligence Law’, De Justicia (13 August 2024), https://www.dejusticia.org/en/on-the-path-to-corporate-accountability-the-global-south-and-the-new-european-due-diligence-law/ (accessed 8 February 2025).

15 Atchabahian, Ana Cláudia Ruy, Transterritorialidade: uma teoria de responsabilização de empresas por violação aos direitos humanos (Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris, 2020) 55 Google Scholar.

16 Business & Human Rights Resource Centre and Lawyers for Human Rights, ‘Binding Treaty 2024: Day 5: Friday 20 December 2024’, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (20 December 2024), www.business-humanrights.org (accessed 8 February 2025).

17 Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazú Agreement) (adopted on 4 March 2018, entered into force on 22 April 2021).

18 López-Cubillos, S, Muñoz-Ávila, L, Roberson, LA, Suárez-Castro, AF, Ochoa-Quintero, JM, Crouzeilles, R, Gallo-Cajiao, E, Rhodes, J, Dressler, W, Martinez-Harms, MJ and Runting, RK, ‘The Landmark Escazú Agreement: An Opportunity to Integrate Democracy, Human Rights, and Transboundary Conservation’ (2022) 15 Conservation Letters e12838 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Medici-Colombo, Gastón and Ricarte, Thays, ‘The Escazú Agreement Contribution to Environmental Justice in Latin America: An Exploratory Empirical Inquiry through the Lens of Climate Litigation’ (2024) 16:1 Journal of Human Rights Practice 160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 CIVICUS, ‘ESCAZÚ: The Work of Civil Society Made a Huge Difference’, 12 Feb. 2019, https://www.civicus.org/index.php/media-resources/news/interviews/3728-escazu-the-work-of-civil-society-made-a-huge-difference (accessed 11 August 2025).

21 For international lawyers, Onuma Yasuaki presents the need for a shift from a purely Eurocentric paradigm to its adaptation to multipolarity and attentiveness to the specificities of different global actors. Yasuaki, Onuma, Direito Internacional em perspectiva transcivilizacional: questionamento da estrutura cognitiva predominante no emergente mundo multipolar e multicivilizacional do século XXI, translation Ferreira, Jardel Gonçalves Anjos [et al.] (Belo Horizonte: Arraes Editores, 2016) 55 Google Scholar.

22 Olsen, Tricia D., Schrempf-Stirling, Judith and Van Buren, Harry J. III A Research Agenda for Business and Human Rights (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2025)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Dorothée Baumann-Pauly, ‘Why the World Economic Forum Should Be a Platform to Promote Human Rights’, NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights (7 January 2025), https://bhr.stern.nyu.edu/quick-take/why-the-world-economic-forum-should-be-a-platform-to-promote-human-rights/ (accessed 8 February 2025).

24 Ruggie, John, Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights (New York: The Penguin Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

25 Bacha, Edmar, ‘Nosso problema é a natureza ser um bem sem dono’ in Arnt, Ricardo (org.), O que os economistas pensam sobre sustentabilidade (São Paulo: Ed. 34, 2010) 53 Google Scholar. Fullerton, John, Regenerative Capitalism: How Universal Principles and Patterns Will Shape Our New Economy (Capital Institute, 2015)Google Scholar.

26 Geneva Center for Business and Human Rights, ‘Case Studies’, Geneva Center for Business and Human Rights, https://gcbhr.org/insights/publications/case-studies/ (accessed 8 February 2025).

27 Abramovay, Ricardo, ‘O discurso ambientalista continuará precário enquanto não desenvolver uma compreensão mais refinada sobre o que é o mercado’ in Arnt, Ricardo (org.), O que os economistas pensam sobre sustentabilidade (São Paulo: Ed. 34, 2010) 265 Google Scholar.

28 Geneva Center for Business and Human Rights, CASE STUDY: Sourcing Sustainable Rubber: Veja’s Business Model to Help Save the Amazon by Baumann-Pauly, Dorothée, Nolan, Justine, and Symington, Andy (Geneva: Geneva Center for Business and Human Rights, September 2023)Google Scholar. Geneva Center for Business and Human Rights, CASE STUDY: Transforming the Diamond Value Chain: HB Antwerp’s Model of Radical Transparency in Botswana by Baumann-Pauly, Dorothée and Nolan, Justine (Geneva: Geneva Center for Business and Human Rights, January 2025)Google Scholar.

29 Flávia Silva Scabin, Júlia Lambert Gomes Ferraz, Olívia Landi Corrales Guaranha, ‘Violência de gênero e desastres: uma perspectiva em direitos humanos e empresas sobre o rompimento da barragem de Fundão/MG’ in Ana Cláudia Ruy Cardia Atchabahian, Danielle Anne Pamplona, Milena Girardi Fachin (eds.), Mulheres, Direitos Humanos e Empresas (São Paulo: Almedina, 2023) 49-87.

30 A good example is the materials produced by academics from different regions of the Global South outlining the specificities of their respective countries regarding BHR topics. See Rivera, Humberto Cantú (ed.), Rivera, Humberto Cantú, López, Miguel Barboza and Gil, Daniela Montaño (coords.), Experiencias Latinoamericanas sobre reparación en materia de empresas y derechos humanos (Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Programa Estado de Derecho para Latinoamérica, 2021)Google Scholar. Garavito, César Rodríguez (Ed.), Empresas y derechos humanos en el siglo XXI: La actividad corporativa bajo la lupa, entre las regulaicones internacionales y la acción de la sociedad civil (Buenos Aires: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 2018)Google Scholar.

31 Posner, Michael H., Conscience Incorporated: Pursue Profits While Protecting Human Rights (New York: New York University Press, 2024)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Robinson, Mary, Justiça climática: esperança, resiliência e luta por um futuro sustentável, translation Gonçalves, Leo (Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2021) 36 Google Scholar. Thunberg, Greta (Org.), The Climate Book (New York: Penguin Books, an imprint of Penguin Random House, LLC, 2024)Google Scholar.

33 Statute of the International Court of Justice, 33 UNTS 993 (adopted on 26 June 1945, entered into force on 24 October 1945) art. 38

34 The Danish Institute for Human Rights, Human Rights Impact Assessment: Guidance and Toolbox (Copenhagen: The Danish Institute for Human Rights, 2020)Google Scholar. For other examples Justine Nolan and Nana Frishling, ‘Human Rights Due Diligence and the (Over) Reliance on Social Auditing in Supply Chains’ in Surya Deva and David Birchall (eds), Research Handbook on Human Rights and Business (UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020) 108, 129.

35 United Nations, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework (2011), www.ohchr.org (accessed 6 June 2024) Principle 17.

36 Some references from researchers in the Global North and Global South include Justine Nolan and Nana Frishling, ‘Human Rights Due Diligence and the (Over) Reliance on Social Auditing in Supply Chains’ in Surya Deva and David Birchall (eds), Research Handbook on Human Rights and Business (UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020) 108, 129. Nolan, Justine and Bott, Gregory, ‘Global Supply Chains and Human Rights: Spotlight on Forced Labour and Modern Slavery Practices’ (2018) 24:1 Australian Journal of Human Rights 44, 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Krajewski, Markus, Tonstad, Kristel and Wohltmann, Franziska, ‘Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence in Germany and Norway: Stepping, or Striding, in the Same Direction?’ (2021) 6:3 Business and Human Rights Journal 550, 558CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Deva, Surya, ‘Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence Laws in Europe: A Mirage for Rightsholders?’ (2023) 36:2 Leiden Journal of International Law 389, 414CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 France, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway, and Germany. Krajewski, Markus, Tonstad, Kristel and Wohltmann, Franziska, ‘Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence in Germany and Norway: Stepping, or Striding, in the Same Direction?’ (2021) 6:3 Business and Human Rights Journal 550, 558CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Deva, Surya, ‘Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence Laws in Europe: A Mirage for Rightsholders?’ (2023) 36:2 Leiden Journal of International Law 389, 414CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Atchabahian, Ana Cláudia Ruy Cardia, ESG: Teoria e prática para a verdadeira sustentabilidade nos negócios (São Paulo: Saraiva Jur, 2024)Google Scholar.

39 Robinson, Mary, Justiça climática: esperança, resiliência e a luta por um futuro sustentável, trans. Gonçalves, Leo (Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2021) 39, 48, 133Google Scholar.

40 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, ‘Impactos das enchentes no Rio Grande do Sul: Observações e recomendações para a garantia dos direitos econômicos, sociais, culturais e ambientais’, OEA/Ser.L (31 March 2025) p.17,18.

41 D Vrkic, ‘Climate Change, El Niño and Infrastructure Failures behind Massive Floods in Southern Brazil’, World Weather Attribution, https://policycommons.net/artifacts/12513032/climate-change-el-nino-and-infrastructure-failures-behind-massive-floods-in-southern-brazil/13411152/ (accessed 14 August 2025).

42 Paul J Crutzen and Eugene F Stoermer, ‘The “Anthropocene”’ (2000) 41 Global Change Newsletter 17, 18.

43 JUMA, ‘Justiça Climática’ https://juma.jur.puc-rio.br/pesquisas-justica-climatica#:~:text=A%20nova%20%C3%A9poca%20geol%C3%B3gica%20da,funcionamento%20b%C3%A1sico%20do%20sistema%20terrestre. (accessed 11 August 2025).

44 Robinson, Mary, Justiça climática: esperança, resiliência e a luta por um futuro sustentável, trans. Gonçalves, Leo (Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2021) 45 Google Scholar.

45 World Economic Forum, The Global Risks Report 2024, 19th edn. (Geneva: World Economic Forum, 2024).

46 Rivera, Humberto Cantú, ‘Debida Diligencia en Derechos Humanos: Breves Reflexiones’ in Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos (org.), Derechos Humanos y Empresas: Reflexiones desde América Latina (San José, C.R.: IIDH, 2017) 433 Google Scholar.

47 United Nations, ‘A/HRC/RES/48/13’ (2021).

48 United Nations, ‘A/RES/76/300’ (2022).

49 United Nations, ‘A/RES/77/215’ (2023).

50 United Nations, ‘A/RES/77/276’ (2023).

51 Albert Ruda, ‘La responsabilidad de los Estados por el Cambio Climático a la luz de Urgenda. ¿Un Futuro Prometedor o un Camino Hacia Ninguna Parte?’ in Daniel Francisco Nagao Menezes, Ernani de Paula Contipelli, Luís Renato Vedovato (Orgs.), Migração, mudança climática e economia social em um mundo globalizado (Belo Horizonte: Arraes Editores, 2018) 7.

52 Transterritoriality is a theory that presents the result of the joint application, by States and domestic judges, of existing rules of Public International Law, Private International Law, and International Human Rights Law, by means of the consideration of the heterarchy of such norms, as well as of the transversal dialogue and interpretation of their predicates. Its methodology is constructed under the theories of fragmentation of international law, societal constitutionalism, transconstitutionalism, and the transversal governance of fundamental rights, designed, respectively, by Martti Koskenniemi, Gunther Teubner, Marcelo Neves and Marcelo Torelly. Transterritoriality, therefore, will leverage the positive aspect of extraterritoriality—which is disconnecting protection of human rights as mere rhetoric for social and economically developed States and developing States—with the expansion of its scope through rules of jurisdiction, thus obliging states to apply their internal protection rules and obey sources of international law, transversally and through international legal cooperation—as well as transnational or global law—without these rules being interpreted transcivilizationally by the competent judges. Ana Cláudia Ruy Cardia Atchabahian, ‘Transterritoriality as a Theory to Hold Corporations Accountable for Human Rights Violations: The Application of Its Principles in Vedanta and Nevsun Cases’ (2022) 19:2 Revista de Direito Internacional 67–82. Ana Cláudia Ruy Atchabahian, Transterritorialidade: uma teoria de responsabilização de empresas por violação aos direitos humanos (Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris, 2020).

53 International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion, Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, General List No 187 (23 July 2025) [456].

54 Marisa McVey and Annalisa Savaresi, ‘The ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change: A Business and Human Rights Perspective’, Opinio Juris (4 August 2025), https://opiniojuris.org/2025/08/04/the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-a-business-and-human-rights-perspective/ (accessed 11 August 2025).

55 Request for an advisory opinion on the Climate Emergency and Human Rights submitted to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights by the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Chile, https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/soc_1_2023_en.pdf (accessed 10 February 2025).

56 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-32/25, Climate Emergency and Human Rights (3 July 2025).

57 Maria Antonia Tigre, Maxim Bönnemann and Korey Silverman-Roati, ‘A Blueprint for Rights-Based Climate Action: The Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency’, Verfassungsblog (9 July 2025), https://verfassungsblog.de/inter-american-court-of-human-rights-advisory-opinion-climate/#:~:text=This%20article%20belongs%20to%20the,to%20be%20a%20climate%20emergency (accessed 11 August 2025).

58 Maria Antonia Tigre and Margaret Barry, Climate Change in the Courts: A 2024 Retrospective (Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, January 2025).

59 Wedy, Gabriel, Litígios climáticos: de acordo com o direito brasileiro, norte americano e alemão (Belo Horizonte: Fórum, 2023) 80, 90Google Scholar.

60 Maria Antonia Tigre and Margaret Barry, Climate Change in the Courts: A 2024 Retrospective (Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, January 2025).

61 Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell PLC, The Hague District Court, 26 May 2021, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379.

62 Luciano Lliuya v RWE AG, Case No 2 O 285/15 Essen Regional Court (Filing Date: 2015).

63 Macchi, Chiara, ‘The Climate Change Dimension of Business and Human Rights: The Gradual Consolidation of a Concept of “Climate Due Diligence”’ (2021) 6:1 Business and Human Rights Journal 93, 119CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Rasche, Andreas and Waddock, Sandra, ‘The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implications for Corporate Social Responsibility Research’ (2021) 6:2 Business and Human Rights Journal 227, 240CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 This article will not discuss the differences between the BHR and the ESG agendas. In this sense, see Atchabahian, Ana Cláudia Ruy Cardia, ESG: Teoria e prática para a verdadeira sustentabilidade nos negócios (São Paulo: Saraiva Jur, 2024)Google Scholar.

66 United Nations, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework (2011), www.ohchr.org (accessed 6 June 2024) Principle 18.

67 Ramasastry, Anita, ‘Advisors or Enablers? Bringing Professional Service Providers into the Guiding Principles’ Fold’ (2021) 6 Business and Human Rights Journal 293, 311CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 Young, Iris Marion, Responsibility for Justice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011) 52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Improving techniques such as the ones described by The Danish Institute for Human Rights in its guidance and toolbox for human rights impact assessments: The Danish Institute for Human Rights, Human Rights Impact Assessment: Guidance and Toolbox (Copenhagen: The Danish Institute for Human Rights, 2020).

70 Rivera, Humberto Cantú, ‘Debida Diligencia en Derechos Humanos: Breves Reflexiones’ in Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos (org.), Derechos Humanos y Empresas: Reflexiones desde América Latina (San José, C.R.: IIDH, 2017) 430 Google Scholar.

71 Viviane Elias Moreira, ‘Riscos Emergentes & ESG’ in Juliana Oliveira Nascimento (Coord.), ESG: o cisne verde e o capitalismo de stakeholder (São Paulo: Thomsom Reuters Brasil, 2023) 549.

72 Eduardo Ernesto Vega Luna, ‘Uma ley de debida diligencia empresarial baseada em evidencia y em el diálogo multiactor’ in Diego Alonso Navarro (Coord.), Conducta Empresarial Responsable y derechis humanos: Normas vinculantes y debida diligencia (Lima: Universidad Antonio Ruiz de Montoya, Centro de Políticas Públicas y Derehos Humanos Perú EQUIDAD, 2022) 79.