Drawing on the work of Donaldson and Walsh, this article explains why for-profit companies in industries denominated by intrinsic values such as health, education and justice, have heavier responsibilities when it comes to honouring the human rights reflected in their industry identity. Optimized collective value, the overarching aim of any system of business, is defined in terms of the satisfaction of intrinsic values, a definition that gives special meaning to firms operating in industries themselves defined in terms of intrinsic values. Nor are such companies’ responsibilities to human rights, such as the right to healthcare, conveniently reducible to the ‘enlightened’ pursuit of profit. For example, a pharmaceutical company such as Pfizer or Moderna may be required to make its COVID-19 vaccine more accessible to COVID-19 victims in developing countries at the expense of optimizing profits over the long run. Such companies have a special and mandatory correlative duty to honour the right to healthcare that derives from their corporate constitutional purpose.

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.

Cloud computing underlies many of the most powerful and controversial technologies of our day – from large-scale data processing to face recognition systems – yet the human rights impacts of cloud computing have received little scrutiny. This article explains what cloud computing is, how it works, and what some of its most significant human rights impacts are through three case studies. It offers some initial thoughts on the human rights responsibilities of cloud computing providers under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and concludes by suggesting directions for future research.

The business and human rights agenda is gaining momentum internationally, perhaps best evidenced through recent legislative responses to tackling modern slavery. Using a reflexive law lens, we analyse three recent laws – the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, the French ‘duty of vigilance’ law of 2017, and the Australian Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth). The three laws, or their accompanying guidance, share characteristics in terms of reporting requirements: the supply chain; risk mapping/assessment and management; analysis of subsidiary and supply chain risk; and effectiveness. The French Act has a broader scope as it is a due diligence, rather than a reporting law and includes obligations with regard to human rights and fundamental freedoms, health and safety, and the environment. It is the only Act of the three with substantive penalty provisions. All reporting requirements in the French and Australian Acts are mandatory, but the UK Act has limited mandatory reporting requirements. We find that only 22 companies globally will be required to report under all three laws. Using a subset of this dataset, we analysed 59 French vigilance plans and UK modern slavery statements published by nine manufacturing companies. This provided some preliminary analysis of how businesses have reported under the French Droit de Vigilance and the UK Modern Slavery Act (reports under the Australian Modern Slavery Act for these companies were not published at time of writing). Overall, businesses are using less demanding measures such as introducing policies and delivering training more commonly than the somewhat more resource-intensive activities such as audits. The more onerous requirements of the French law were reflected in the content and level of detail in the vigilance plans, compared with the UK modern slavery statements. However, for some companies, there were strong similarities between the UK and French publications, indicating ‘creep’ from the French Act into UK reports or a ‘race to the top’.

The area of business and human rights (BHR) has a gap in its means to effectively remedy human rights violations. In pursuit of implementing the third pillar of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which focuses on providing an effective remedy to rightsholders affected by corporate human rights violations, it has been proposed to utilize arbitration as a new platform to deal with such violations. The Drafting Team that instigated this initiative has prepared a set of procedural rules for BHR arbitration, called the Hague Rules. The Rules were officially launched on 12 December 2019. These arbitral rules are tailored to the specific needs of settling human rights disputes. In this article, the general idea of BHR arbitration will be analysed and assessed in light of the normative concept of ‘effective’ remedy, using the Hague Rules as a focus point. This article will discuss not only what the Hague Rules would introduce to the general concept of BHR arbitration, but also what limitations might still remain in securing an effective remedy.

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.

While Coca-Cola portrays itself as a ‘water neutrality’ leader, its failures during Cape Town’s water crisis exemplify the changing nature of corporate human rights obligations in the face of climate change. Between 2015 and 2018, drought conditions plunged Cape Town into a crisis, leading to increasingly strict household water restrictions and depriving families of their constitutionally guaranteed water allowance.1 However, in December 2017, when Cape Town officials called for a 45% reduction in commercial water use, Coca-Cola’s local independent bottler – Coca-Cola Peninsula Beverages (CCPB) – refused to reduce its 44 million-litre monthly withdrawals.2 The city subjected households to water restrictions and price increases up to 556%, while businesses only saw a 104% price increase with no consumption restrictions.3

Victims of transnational human rights violations caused by multinational corporations (MNCs) are often confronted with substantial impediments to effective remedies. While justice is de facto unattainable in host state courts, due to weak government or the absence of judicial independence, barriers that prevent victims from litigating in home states are no less insurmountable. Transnational litigation in home states has faced jurisdictional challenges. Defendant corporations have argued that home state courts are not the most appropriate forum to hear a case involving foreign torts.1

Since 2017, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) has incorporated human rights risk assessments into its bidding requirements for major events, beginning with the competition to host the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup.1 This process began at a time of increased scrutiny on the impact of major events and greater focus on the applicability of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) to sport. In 2014, the Centre for Sport and Human Rights’ founding Chair Mary Robinson, together with John Ruggie (author of the UNGPs), wrote to FIFA in their respective capacities as Patron and Chair of the Institute for Human Rights and Business (IHRB) to stress the need for ‘sustained due diligence […] with respect to decisions about host nations and how major sporting events are planned and implemented’.2 Following recommendations set forth in the letter, expanded upon in Ruggie’s 2016 report ‘For the Game, For the World’, FIFA introduced robust bidding requirements that any country or region wishing to bid to host a World Cup will have to conduct a human rights risk assessment and outline how they intend to mitigate each of the risks identified.3 These requirements are designed to align the World Cup bidding process with the UNGPs.

In response to a forced labour review by the International Labour Organization (ILO) that threatened to turn into a formal international inquiry,1 the government of Qatar commenced an ambitious programme of labour reforms aimed largely at addressing concerns about its treatment of migrant workers. About 2.4 million men and women,2 an estimated 88.4 per cent of the small Gulf nation’s population,3 are migrant workers. It has the second largest known gas reserves in the world, and its airbases are home to the largest United States military installation in the Middle East.4 Yet, the small Gulf emirate garnered little international scrutiny until it was awarded in 2010 the right to host the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) men’s Football World Cup tournament in 2022.