This contribution discusses business attitudes to human rights obligations and how the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) have affected them. These are best understood historically through a number of periods. The first, between the mid-1970s and the end of the 1980s, coincides with intergovernmental organization-based codifications relevant to corporate social responsibility. Business representatives were highly defensive towards extensive international legal obligations not only in relation to human rights but to corporate social responsibility (CSR) more generally. This was followed by a period of ‘voluntarism’. By the 1990s, businesses had accepted that there could be a link between their operations and human rights violations but continued to reject binding legal duties. Instead, businesses opted for voluntary codes of conduct based on individual corporate, or sectoral, initiatives. It was out of this period that the UN Global Compact emerged. ‘Voluntarism’ continues into the third period, the era of the UNGPs. The UNGPs can be characterized by ‘institutionalized voluntarism’ achieved through the framework for business and human rights represented by the UNGPs. Each period will be examined followed by a concluding section that considers business attitudes to an emerging fourth period that introduces legal obligations through mandatory due diligence laws.

The fields of business and human rights (BHR) and business for peace (B4P) have overlaps in how they view business in society and in their multidisciplinary nature. This paper seeks to build on the work of BHR scholars in connecting with the B4P scholarly community, to bridge the divide by explaining the elements of the B4P literature that might be of interest for BHR scholars, and to describe a joint research agenda for scholars in both fields. The paper begins with a literature review of the major assertions and findings of B4P on the role that business can and should play in enhancing peace. Similarities and differences in approach and theories between BHR and B4P are then noted. A common research agenda is proposed that BHR and B4P scholars may use as a starting point for broader collaboration.

Despite significant progress in business and human rights (BHR) discourse and the practices of multinational corporations (MNCs), persons with disabilities and disability rights are absent from both the key instruments and practice of BHR. This lacuna exists despite the near-universal ratification of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as the fact that disabled persons constitute over 15 per cent of the global population and MNC operations impact them greatly and disproportionately. We argue that MNCs have a central role, responsibility and opportunity to foment change globally in fulfilling the human rights of persons with disabilities through their employment practices and by leveraging their economic power to fulfil other aspects of disability-based human rights. Doing so requires the development and self-enforcement of disability-specific human rights due diligence (HRDD) processes, and creating a general culture of diversity, equity and inclusion that encompasses disability.

The law and practice concerning the responsibilities of businesses and the obligations of their home states in relation to private dealings in occupied territory are under-developed. The establishment of a database by the United Nations (UN) Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to monitor the activities of corporate actors in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) is an opportunity to provide much-needed guidance on the scope of application of existing international law in this paradigmatic case of a high-risk business environment. This article engages with the contribution of this initiative to the regulation of transnational corporate dealings through two normative issues: the structural characteristics and effects of the violations taking place in certain business environments maintained in the OPT on the responsibilities of business and home states; and the various modes through which businesses become directly linked with and contribute to the illicit property rights regime underpinning the existence of settlements and the serious human rights abuses perpetuated by their maintenance.

The endorsement of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) triggered a remarkable process accelerating the recognition of human rights responsibilities for corporations in law and governance. Perhaps even more important is the emergence of an authoritative narrative on business and human rights (BHR), which arguably has the potential to overcome the often-fragmented approach to global issues. This article discusses the degree to which the BHR narrative has been able to penetrate competing powerful narratives that shape societal and regulatory responses. To what extent is the need to address the responsibility and accountability of corporations for human rights violations acknowledged? This is an especially pertinent question where it concerns imminent major global challenges such as climate change, which poses one of the greatest threats to human rights. Two major milestones of the last decade in the area of (environmental) sustainability are analysed: the Paris Climate Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals. What role does the BHR narrative play in this context?

After a decade, different businesses adhere to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Some key commercial entities, however, remain largely outside of the UNGPs universe, including professional service providers (PSPs) who are retained by businesses to provide  expert advice and services. These advisors include lawyers, management consultants, architects and others. Some may have specialized units that provide advice on the UNGPs when retained solely for that purpose. But when asked to provide general commercial legal advice, to design a building, or restructure a business, such advisors do not typically appear to apply the UNGPs, to identify negative human rights impacts and tailor their advice in a way that prevents or mitigates such impacts. This article explores the connection between the advice provided by PSPs and negative human rights impacts. It underscores the critical need for these advisors to align their business processes and advisory services with the UNGPs to avoid being enablers of human rights abuses.

The relentless spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)1 has been exponential, with an alarming number of deaths2 putting health systems under severe strain. The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared COVID-19 a pandemic3 and health experts cannot predict when a vaccine may be available, or when the spread will slow.

In February this year, the European Commission finally released its proposal for an EU-wide Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (‘the draft directive’).1 The draft directive, which follows the 2017 French devoir du vigilance (Duty of Vigilance) and the 2021 German Lieferkettengesetz (Supply Chain Law) as well as a 2020 European Parliament draft law on the same topic,2 is in various respects the most ambitious of its kind.3 Nonetheless, the move to legalize the concept of human rights and environmental due diligence as derived from the international standards has once again tempted European policy-makers (often in the name of ‘legal certainty’) to amend and limit aspects of the internationally agreed and -established concept, with the ultimate effect of reducing decade-long established responsibilities for companies.

In this article, we explore what intersectionality, as an analytic tool, can contribute to business and human rights (BHR) scholarship. To date, few BHR scholars have explicitly engaged in intersectional analysis. While gender analysis of BHR issues remains crucial to expose inequality in business activity, we argue that engagement with intersectionality can enrich and support this and other BHR scholarship. Intersectional approaches allow us to move beyond single-axis analysis, contest simplistic representations about gender issues and expose the complexity of human relations. It draws our attention to structures that sustain disadvantage such as racism, colonialism, social and economic marginalization and systematic discrimination. Moreover, intersectionality emphasizes the need to centre the contributions of those who have been marginalized. It can be used to challenge the legitimacy of the state and support subaltern, decolonized or postcolonial, including indigenous, perspectives. Adopting an intersectional approach can help problematize the neoliberal capitalist system and its constructs, in which the BHR normative framework is embedded, calling into question the reification of economic growth and its impact on individuals, communities and the planet. We must, however, remain cautious of attempts to co-opt intersectionality in the service of neoliberalism and remain conscious of our own privilege and discursive practices.

Human rights due diligence (HRDD) has become the buzzword of much of the advocacy and work today around business and human rights.1 It is almost commonplace that companies have the responsibility to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address these adverse human rights impacts as part of their ongoing HRDD processes, in line with the UNGPs.2 The assessment of human rights impacts (HRIA) is a critical step in this process.3

This article explores different approaches to assessing the effectiveness of non-state-based non-judicial grievance mechanisms (NSBGMs) in achieving access to remedy for rightsholders. It queries the approach that has been widely adopted as a result of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), which focuses on the procedural aspects of grievance mechanisms. Rather, it stresses the importance of analysing the outcomes of cases for rightsholders. This article tests this hypothesis by undertaking comprehensive empirical research into the complaint mechanism of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). RSPO is found to perform well when judged according to the UNGPs’ effectiveness criteria. However, it performs poorly when individual cases are assessed to ascertain the outcomes that are achieved for rightsholders. The article therefore argues for the importance of equivalent scrutiny of outcomes in relation to other NSBGMs and provides an approach and accompanying methodology that can be utilized for that purpose.

Salinas Grandes is a vast salt flat in the high-altitude Puna region of Salta and Jujuy, two north-western provinces of Argentina. It is situated in one of the world’s driest regions, with an extremely fragile ecosystem. Salinas Grandes is so iconic and beautiful that Argentinians voted it amongst the country’s top seven natural wonders in May 2019.1 In addition to its beauty, this stunning desert of salt also holds one of the largest reserves of lithium in the world. Lithium is a light and versatile metal used to produce, among other things, the lithium-ion batteries that power electric vehicles (EV). As global efforts to phase out fossil fuels from our transport systems and adopt clean energy alternatives increase, lithium is becoming increasingly critical. It is no wonder, therefore, that industry has coined it the ‘white gold’.2 Salinas Grandes is only one of many salt lakes in North West Argentina which, together with Bolivia and Chile, form what is known as the ‘lithium triangle’. It is estimated that these three countries alone account for more than half of the world’s lithium.3 Global demand for lithium to produce EV is expected to grow rapidly over the coming decade. To meet this demand, the lithium industry will require significant investment to ramp up additional supply.4 As a result, all eyes have turned to the ‘lithium triangle’ and investment in the region has soared in recent years.5 For the three developing countries, this represents a unique opportunity to attract much-needed foreign investment and boost economic growth.6

This article proposes to see the history of the international law on foreign investment as about the promotion of investor rights as much as the resistance to investor obligations. The argument is that the divide between investment protection and the responsibility of foreign investors is one of the most significant features of international investment law. The article shows that the different treatment of rights and obligations is grounded in the same business project and legal imagination. Maintaining this divide has never been easy, as this model faced resistance, particularly from Latin America, trade unions and human rights activists. The analysis concludes by noting that academics can contribute to reimagining the international law on foreign investment by bringing investment treaty law and business and human rights closer. This shift is already happening.

The concept of a ‘safe harbour’ has been mentioned in several contexts during ongoing discussions around regulatory developments towards mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (mHREDD) which continue at international, European and national levels. This article analyses the concept of a ‘safe harbour’ and how it relates to human rights due diligence (HRDD) as described in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). It discusses examples of other types of safe harbours which were recognized in legislation and case law; considers that a safe harbour could result in a ‘tick-box’ approach; highlights the implications for access to remedy; and distinguishes a safe harbour exemption from a defence of having undertaken HRDD in accordance with an expected standard of conduct.

To explore the emerging and contested issue of business and human rights in the area of climate change, this article provides a critical discussion from the viewpoint of moral philosophy. A novel typology of businesses’ human rights duties (‘duty’ is considered synonymous with ‘responsibility’ here) is proposed. It claims that duties are both forward- and backward-looking. Cases of human rights litigation seeking remedy for climate-related harms are backward-looking, and duties should be determined on the basis of proportion of historical emissions, culpable knowledge and counter-acts to abate climate harms. Businesses’ forward-looking duties, however, depend on their power, privilege, interest and collective abilities. The typology is then assessed against the background of recent legal principles and instruments. It is concluded that moral duties of business reach beyond mere respect for human rights and national jurisdictions in the context of climate change.