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.

This piece analyses the recent judgment from the Makhanda High Court in Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy setting aside the decision to grant Shell and Impact Africa an exploratory right. Shell and Impact Africa intended to conduct a seismic survey along South Africa’s Wild Coast. Such a survey stood to have a substantial impact on the rights and interests of several local communities residing along the coastline. Because Shell, Impact Africa and the Director-General of the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy failed to consider these rights and interests, the court decided to overturn the decision granting the companies their exploratory right. To this end, the judgment provides a powerful vindication of the rights of local communities, illustrating what is possible when regulatory schemes are applied purposively and not as a mere box-ticking exercise.

In October 2020, the Government of Japan formulated a National Action Plan (NAP) on Business and Human Rights in response to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and ensuing greater international awareness of violations of human rights by corporations.1 In the NAP, the government of Japan stated that on the basis of the UNGPs, it expects companies to (i) formulate human rights policies, (ii) conduct due diligence with respect to human rights, and (iii) establish grievance mechanisms.2 In order to achieve these goals, businesses need to understand whether and how they are violating human rights and prepare appropriate solutions. Whistleblowers play a crucial role in this process.

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.

In February 2020, following a decade-long struggle for justice, a determined group of displaced Cambodian farmers and two advocacy organizations (Inclusive Development International and Equitable Cambodia) reached a landmark agreement with the Australia New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ) to provide a financial pay-out to the farmers for their suffering. The agreement set an important human rights precedent for the global banking industry. It was the first time known that a commercial bank made a financial contribution to remediate harms caused by one of its corporate customers, after acknowledging that its human rights due diligence had been inadequate.1 The case was also a rare example of a community receiving financial compensation through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)’s voluntary system of corporate accountability (the OECD’s National Contact Points or NCPs). While the final outcome was positive, its singularity and the immense effort, tenacity and resources required in obtaining it, demonstrate both what is wrong with this corporate accountability system and what reforms are needed to reach its potential to advance greater business respect for human rights.

As the climate and biodiversity crises gain unprecedented attention, many governments across the global north are taking legislative steps to address deforestation in supply chains linked to their domestic consumption or commercial activities, among them, the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU).1

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.

This piece recounts the efforts by NGO Sign of Hope (SoH) to rectify human rights violations in South Sudan, which manifested themselves as drinking water pollution by the oil industry. Committed to exposing and remediating this water contamination, SoH was able to prompt the automobile company Daimler’s CSR to engage in extended dialogue with the oil industry stakeholders in Unity State. Despite a tactful use of various methods ranging from cooperation to confrontation, SoH’s campaign did not lead the oil producers to reverse the harm inflicted on the people of Unity State. When SoH tried to hold these companies accountable, SoH had the impression that it was hitting an elastic wall. This piece identifies lessons which may help to counter corporate human rights violations and compensate for the weakness of CSR in fragile states and in the face of corporate irresponsibility.

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.

August 16th, 2022 marked the 10th anniversary of the Marikana Massacre in Rustenburg, South Africa. This was the worst incident of mass killing by police since the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960 in the heyday of the Apartheid regime. In the first days of August 2012, workers at Lonmin plc, a platinum group metals mining company, went on a wildcat strike demanding a minimum salary of 12500 Rand, circa 800 USD, per month and protesting against the poor living conditions they and their families where subjected to in the Marikana vicinity, an area 100 km north of Johannesburg where the mine is located. As days passed, tension escalated leading to the killing of ten people, including three non-striking workers, two security guards, three striking workers, and two police officers. Various attempts to facilitate negotiations with striking workers were turned down by Lonmin management. Instead, Lonmin managers actively engaged in communications with senior political leaders, police officers, and state mining officials to frame the situation as one that required strong and decisive police intervention.1

There is currently disagreement in the international sports world about whether Russian and Belarusian athletes should be admitted to international competitions. While initially proposing to ban these athletes, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is now recommending that sports federations readmit Russian and Belarusian athletes under certain conditions. The IOC believes that this is unavoidable in order to respect human rights. Sports federations are invoking their autonomy on this issue, with some following the IOC’s advice, some maintaining a ban, and others allowing unconditional participation. This piece seeks to correct the IOC’s interpretation of the applicable human rights standard. It asserts that sporting bodies must respect human rights, and that the principles of autonomy and neutrality of sport must be considered in light of internationally recognised human rights standards. If these are used as a yardstick, it becomes clear that collective exclusion can be justified in the extreme case of a war of aggression.

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.