Germany and Norway are the two latest states to adopt laws mandating human rights due diligence by companies. Germany adopted a Law on Supply Chain Due Diligence (German Law) on 10 June 2021.1 The same day, the Norwegian parliament passed a Transparency Act (Norwegian Act) requiring human rights and decent work due diligence.2 Like the French Loi de Vigilance and the Dutch Child Labour Due Diligence Law, these laws provide further momentum for mandatory measures to promote corporate respect for human rights, including future regulations in the European Union (EU). While the aims are similar, the German and Norwegian laws contain certain important differences when it comes to the substance and scope of the due diligence requirement. In this context, adherence to international standards remains the way forward to ensure compliance with divergent requirements in different jurisdictions.

On 29 November 2020, Swiss citizens voted on a popular constitutional initiative, known as the Swiss Responsible Business Initiative.1 The vote was triggered by an initiative signed by more than the required 100,000 Swiss citizens who used their constitutional right to ask for an amendment of the Swiss Constitution by introducing a new provision on mandatory human rights due diligence and corporate liability. For such an initiative to be successful, both the majority of the people as well as of the cantons (states) is required. While 50.7 per cent of the participating voters accepted the initiative, the proposal did not reach the majority of the cantons and therefore the Responsible Business Initiative was rejected. Its rejection nevertheless triggered the adoption of new reporting and due diligence obligations relating to conflict minerals and child labour, which the Parliament had promised to adopt in case the Responsible Business Initiative was rejected.2 This contribution outlines the content of the newly adopted human rights due diligence legislation that will reflect the due diligence standard for companies in Switzerland for the years to come. It also aims to inform policy makers in other countries by describing the political struggle underlying the adoption of mandatory human rights due diligence in Switzerland.

Darnella Frazer, a teenage witness to a fatal police encounter, used social media to share her cell phone video footage capturing a white police officer casually kneeling on the neck of a handcuffed Black man named George Floyd for nearly nine minutes. Her video rapidly went viral, sparking civil unrest across the United States (US) and protests around the world.1 Independent experts of the Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council came together to issue a joint statement condemning ‘systemic racism’ and ‘state sponsored racial violence’ in the US.2 George Floyd was not the first unarmed Black person to die in police custody under questionable circumstances,3 but his murder motivated many to confront the reality of racism in American society. A broad section of the business community reacted to the civil unrest in the immediate aftermath of the murder of George Floyd with solidarity statements denouncing racism and pledges to promote racial equality.4 Brands rushed to embrace the previously untouchable #BlackLivesMatter movement in marketing campaigns. Business leaders expressed interested in evaluating how particular policies and practices operate in ways that serve to promote racial discrimination or perpetuate racial inequality.5

A ground-breaking judgment of the Australian Federal Court regarding the Montara oil spill in the Timor Sea in 2009, Sanda v PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd (No 7) (Sanda (No 7)),1 is one of the few Australian class actions to proceed to a favourable judgment for the claimants. It is also the first judgment against an Australian company for cross-border pollution loss suffered by foreign claimants.

National Contact Points (NCPs), which support the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, are often invoked as a reliable state-based mechanism for holding transnational corporations accountable for business-related human rights abuses. The objective of this article is to scrutinize the ability of NCPs to offer effective remedy through the lens of an often-quoted success story (the case of the post-colonial brewery Bralima-Heineken at the Dutch NCP) and through a few existing studies that examine factors that curtail or enhance the possibility of NCP mechanisms to deliver effective remedy. Based on these findings, we suggest specific ‘actions for effectiveness’ in the form of recommendations for improving NCPs as a tool to deliver effective remedy. Zooming out, we extend some general observations on how our findings illustrate that NCPs are expressions of a larger systemic problem surrounding the role of law within market globalization and the impact of economic liberalization on the making of norms, changing legal authority and basic fairness under conditions of stark power imbalance. Supporting this approach are historical factors which make the OECD Guidelines and NCPs ripe for such conceptualization.

Foreign direct liability litigation against businesses is still a growing trend in European domestic courts, going on for over two decades.1 With absent effective remedies in host states, victims of human rights abuses committed by transnational corporations’ subsidiaries try to get access to remedy in the courts of the home states of the parent companies. A crucial factor for whether such cases can succeed, is the viability of the claims against the parent companies allegedly involved in the abuses. The principal legal route that victims have used to hold parent companies liable is through common law negligence claims.

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 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?

Ten years after the publication of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), implementation efforts are in full swing. Companies in particular have used their existing corporate social responsibility (CSR) structures to make sense of and implement Pillar II of the UNGPs. This process has led to a co-optation of the business and human rights (BHR) agenda. One manifestation of such co-optation is the instrumentalization of CSR to confront and undermine the growing trend towards binding BHR legislation. Accordingly, this contribution conceptualizes Pillar II implementation as a process of domestication, co-optation and confrontation of the BHR agenda. It makes sense of this process by juxtaposing it with long-standing critique against CSR put forth particularly by critical management scholars, raising the question whether CSR is indeed well-equipped to drive BHR implementation efforts within companies.

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 High Court of England and Wales in its November 2020 judgment in Municipio de Mariana v BHP Group1 (BHP) declined jurisdiction to hear the case initiated by victims of the Fundão Dam collapse in Brazil on the grounds of abuse of process. The decision raises serious questions about the Court’s willingness to vindicate the fair trial rights of victims of human rights abuses linked to multinational enterprises (MNEs). In this judgment, Turner J also made obiter comments on the possibility of staying the case on application of Article 34 of the Recast Brussels Regulation (Recast Regulation),2 the doctrine of forum non conveniens (FNC), and/or the Court’s case management discretion.

In the waning days of the indelible 2020, China and the European Union (EU) clinched an ‘in-principle’ deal on their Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI).1 After seven years of negotiation, the treaty attracted widespread public scrutiny, partly due to the significant investment flows between China and the EU, although wider considerations are also at play. China’s 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization laid a major building block in the global order. Its economic rise and export growth have provided cheaper electronics, appliances and clothes for global consumers, but also prompted concerns about the environment and implications for jobs and working conditions in deindustrializing countries. This economic reconfiguration has created complex, often tense, relations between China and established powers such as the EU and the United States (US), to which multilateral arrangements have offered only partial responses.2

For the first time in four decades, leading business associations, corporations, and the corporate law and governance community are seriously debating moving beyond shareholder primacy toward some form of ‘stakeholder governance. But the how question unveils significant differences of opinion as well as difficulties. We focus on a pathway that complements the ambition of stakeholder governance, but which current reform proposals have largely overlooked. We draw on practical experience in the field of business and human rights, where leading companies are increasingly embedding human rights due diligence processes into their strategic decision-making. We contend that as human rights due diligence is made mandatory for companies, which it is in a growing number of jurisdictions, including for foreign firms with a significant business presence in them, risks to stakeholders become a material corporate governance issue. That makes it necessary for firms to address stakeholder concerns and to demonstrate that they are, with possible legal consequences for having failed to do where harm occurs. Such changes by themselves may not constitute a full-blown system of multi-fiduciary obligations, but they mark substantial strides on the path toward it, and they are doing it in the relatively near-term.

This article makes the case for a ‘holistic’ approach to human rights due diligence, arguing that such a standard must be interpreted in the light of mutually reinforcing principles of environmental law, climate law and human rights law. Through a review of emerging climate change-related litigation, it shows how a concept of ‘climate due diligence’ is gradually consolidating. Building on the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the article explores climate due diligence both as a standard of conduct and as a business process, presenting its main features. It argues that corporations should integrate climate due diligence into their processes and policies to be best prepared for likely regulatory and judicial developments, such as the upcoming European Union’s regulation on human rights and environmental due diligence.

This paper presents an original framework designed to systematize understanding of corporate power over human rights. The framework disaggregates four sites of this power: corporations have direct power over individuals’ human rights, power over the materialities of human rights, power over institutions governing human rights, and power over knowledge around human rights. This disaggregation is derived primarily from the work of Barnett and Duvall and focuses on the effects of corporate activity rather than the Weberian understanding of power as the ability to achieve desired outcomes. The framework captures a broad set of corporate acts based on their (potential) harm to human rights. It is argued that understanding business and human rights through the lens of power can help to advance a more comprehensive account of business impacts on human rights.

This article discusses three questions. First, what drives business to ignore human rights, or even worse, consciously undermine the achievement of human rights? Second, given the state of affairs of business and human rights, why is there not a quick regulatory fix to the problems that we see? Third, in light of the failure of business and of regulation so far, what can be done? The article posits that reform of company law is key to ensuring business respect for human rights, as an intrinsic element of the transition to sustainability. The article outlines how company law can facilitate sustainable business. It concludes with some reflections on the drivers for change that make it possible to envisage that the necessary reform of company law will be enacted.

This article assesses different approaches currently discussed and developed in international human rights and investment law to establish investor obligations. The article begins with a general framework of analysing and comparing these approaches. Next, attempts to include direct obligations of business entities in international human rights treaties are discussed. Despite earlier indications the recent initiative to create a legally binding instrument on business and human rights will most likely not include direct obligations for business entities. Subsequently, the article assesses the development of investor obligations in new international investment treaties and through the interpretation and application of existing international investment agreements. Arguably, the former will not lead to binding obligations in the foreseeable future and the latter rests on methodologically questionable grounds. Consequently, the article suggests that the way forward will require domestic legislation in host and home states to establish investor obligations which can be taken into account when interpreting existing investment treaty clauses requiring the investor to adhere to domestic law. This would reflect recent trends both in investment law reforms as well as the business and human rights movement.