13th United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights

The newly introduced BHR Informal Dialogues will offer an open, dynamic platform for inclusive and in-depth discussions on critical issues within the Business and Human Rights (BHR) agenda. These sessions are structured to encourage autonomous, participant-led conversations without formal speakers or panelists, fostering a free-flowing exchange of diverse ideas and perspectives. The aim is to create a collaborative space where all participants can directly engage with one another, enabling meaningful dialogue that promotes deeper understanding of key issues.

By encouraging active participation from all participants, the BHR Informal Dialogues seek to ensure that a broad range of voices contribute to shaping the future of business and human rights practices. This format prioritizes diversity of views and backgrounds, creating a space where different stakeholders can share insights, experiences, and best practices in a flexible and open environment.

Topics for Discussion: The BHR Informal Dialogues will focus on a range of pressing topics, including:

• Conflict-Affected Areas: Focusing on the responsibilities of businesses operating in regions affected by conflict.

This informal and interactive space is open to everyone and is designed to spark collaborative thinking, drive solution-oriented discussions, and contribute to advancing the global BHR agenda.
Each Interactive dialogue will be facilitated by one or two people to ensure effective and inclusive dialogue. The facilitators will guide the discussion, assist in maintaining a balanced conversation, and ensure that all voices are heard. This structure will help both facilitators and participants to ensure a free-flowing exchange of diverse ideas and perspectives.

There will be no interpretation provided.

The newly introduced BHR Informal Dialogues will offer an open, dynamic platform for inclusive and in-depth discussions on critical issues within the Business and Human Rights (BHR) agenda. These sessions are structured to encourage autonomous, participant-led conversations without formal speakers or panelists, fostering a free-flowing exchange of diverse ideas and perspectives. The aim is to create a collaborative space where all participants can directly engage with one another, enabling meaningful dialogue that promotes deeper understanding of key issues.

By encouraging active participation from all participants, the BHR Informal Dialogues seek to ensure that a broad range of voices contribute to shaping the future of business and human rights practices. This format prioritizes diversity of views and backgrounds, creating a space where different stakeholders can share insights, experiences, and best practices in a flexible and open environment.

Topics for Discussion: The BHR Informal Dialogues will focus on a range of pressing topics, including:

• Corporate Influence in the Political and Regulatory Sphere: Investigating the role of corporate lobbying and its impact on human rights legislation, regulation and policies.

This informal and interactive space is open to everyone and is designed to spark collaborative thinking, drive solution-oriented discussions, and contribute to advancing the global BHR agenda.
Each Interactive dialogue will be facilitated by one or two people to ensure effective and inclusive dialogue. The facilitators will guide the discussion, assist in maintaining a balanced conversation, and ensure that all voices are heard. This structure will help both facilitators and participants to ensure a free-flowing exchange of diverse ideas and perspectives.

There will be no interpretation provided.

The newly introduced BHR Informal Dialogues will offer an open, dynamic platform for inclusive and in-depth discussions on critical issues within the Business and Human Rights (BHR) agenda. These sessions are structured to encourage autonomous, participant-led conversations without formal speakers or panelists, fostering a free-flowing exchange of diverse ideas and perspectives. The aim is to create a collaborative space where all participants can directly engage with one another, enabling meaningful dialogue that promotes deeper understanding of key issues.

By encouraging active participation from all participants, the BHR Informal Dialogues seek to ensure that a broad range of voices contribute to shaping the future of business and human rights practices. This format prioritizes diversity of views and backgrounds, creating a space where different stakeholders can share insights, experiences, and best practices in a flexible and open environment.

This informal and interactive space is open to everyone and is designed to spark collaborative thinking, drive solution-oriented discussions, and contribute to advancing the global BHR agenda.

Each Interactive dialogue will be facilitated by one or two people to ensure effective and inclusive dialogue. The facilitators will guide the discussion, assist in maintaining a balanced conversation, and ensure that all voices are heard. This structure will help both facilitators and participants to ensure a free-flowing exchange of diverse ideas and perspectives. There will be no interpretation provided.

Topics for Discussion: The BHR Informal Dialogues will focus on a range of pressing topics, including:

• Development Finance Institutions (DFIs): Assessing the role of DFIs in promoting business practices that respect human rights.

Objectives
- Raise awareness about DFIs’ responsibility in protecting human rights and ensuring public participation.
- Discuss and identify potential measures on how DFIs should strengthen their safeguards and accountability.

Guiding questions:
- What specific strategies can DFIs adopt to promote a safe civic space and ensure meaningful public participation in development projects, while promoting human rights in their business practices?
- How can development finance institutions strengthen their accountability mechanisms to ensure effective access to remedy for communities affected by their investments?

Snapshot co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, SOMO (the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations), and Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA) – Latinoamérica  

Brief description of the session:
The session aims to unveil pathways towards a just energy transition, highlighting the legal empowerment of communities and broadening access to justice through an enriched dialogue within a smart mix of measures.

We aim to explore legal strategies that can promote a just transition by empowering communities to ensure access to justice. We also aim to delve into the symbiosis interplay of decolonisation, decarbonisation, and decentralisation, enriched while addressing environmental racism and embedding gender and intersectionality perspectives. These principles not only advocate for the dismantling of historical power imbalances but also underscore the importance of fairness, inclusive decision-making and restorative justice for Indigenous and marginalised communities.

Key objectives of the session: 
The primary objective of this session is to showcase case studies and legal strategies attempted by Global South communities that have challenged the unfairness of the energy transition while also championing the rights of local communities, with a focus on the irresponsible disengagement of carbon fossil fuel industries. This session aims to leverage (legal) strategies in a multi-stakeholder dialogue, to build a sustainable and just future.
We strive to unravel the intricate link between environmental justice and human rights and inspire States and corporate entities to adopt progressive, community-centred and innovative strategies to stop abusive practices. These strategies must prioritise community engagement, uphold respect for the rights of Indigenous and marginalised groups, provide tangible remedies for any adverse impacts of business activities, and demonstrate why responsible closure of carbon fossil fuel industries is not only fair for local communities but also desirable for our planet and societies.

Background documents:
Summary of regional event on just transition and climate litigation that we organized last year in Bogotá: https://aida-americas.org/es/encuentro-latinoamericano-sobre-litigio-climatico-y-transicion-energetica-justa-resumen-de-memorias (in Spanish)

Reflections from Colombia for a Just Energy Transition: document with reflections that make visible specific projects, public policies and regulations that hinder a true just transition by deepening the extraction and use of fuels that aggravate the climate crisis and imply social and environmental risks in the territories. They are collective reflections, supported by other international organizations that, like AIDA, seek climate justice and work to defend the environment and human rights. https://aida-americas.org/es/reflexiones-desde-colombia-para-una-transicion-energetica-justa (in Spanish)

Report that sets out five reasons why coal mining and burning must end from economic, political, environmental, climate and human rights perspectives. In addition, it presents arguments in favor of the decarbonization of Latin America's energy matrix through a process framed in climate justice that respects human rights and gender equality. https://aida-americas.org/es/carbon-un-combustible-condenado-al-entierro-el-final-de-una-era-y-la-promesa-de-una-transicion-justa (in Spanish)
https://www.stakeholderdemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Full-report-Delta-Divestments.pdf

This research analyses the changing context driving divestments and raises several questions about the responsibility of International Oil Companies (IOC) to address the toxic legacies and the implications for communities in the Niger Delta and Nigeria writ large. This includes whether Domestic Oil Companies (DOCs) can improve the performance of the IOCs or if new dynamics could emerge, exacerbating the impacts on citizens, the environment, and the economy.
https://www.stakeholderdemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Addressing-the-South-Souths-Environmental-Emergency.pdf

This paper calls for a high profile intervention on environmental issues to avoid Nigeria slipping further into conflict in the North and South. The paper argues that any discussion on sustainable development, prosperity and economic security in the Niger Delta must recognise the economic importance of the services provided by local ecosystems. Equally, the paper argues that discussion related to the stability of the Niger Delta region must recognise that the loss of sustainable livelihoods as a result of environmental degradation has been a major contributor to the conflict in the Niger Delta over recent years.
https://www.somo.nl/shells-reckless-divestment-from-niger-delta/
https://www.somo.nl/selling-out-the-niger-delta/

Session co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, in collaboration with PAX; Quaker United Nations Office; Asser Institute for International and European Law; Global Rights Compliance; Heartland Initiative; American Bar Association Center for Human Rights; and Essex Business and Human Rights Project, University of Essex 

Brief description of the session:
States, manufacturers, investors and advisers all have responsibilities, whether under international law or the UNGPs, to ensure that weapons are not used to commit violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, are otherwise misused or diverted, or supplied to actors subject to international sanctions. Due diligence should also consider any involvement in prohibited or indiscriminate controversial weapons, including nuclear weapons. As the arms industry is increasingly exempted from mandatory human rights due diligence, this session will shed light on other frameworks which, taken together, can contribute to ensuring adequate human rights due diligence, responsible arms trade, and access to remedy for victims.

Key objectives: 

• Ensure that States and businesses are aware of their responsibilities in relation to arms production and trade, regardless of recent exclusions from legislation.
• Identify how States and the arms sector can conduct appropriate (heightened) HRDD with end-use monitoring to prevent, mitigate and remedy human rights or IHL violations and diversion.
• Provide guidance on how investors can minimise their portfolio exposure to risks associated with arms production and trade.

Key questions:

• Beyond export controls, what measures can States take to ensure responsible business conduct in the arms sector?
• How can the defense sector fulfil its responsibility to respect human rights by conducting appropriate HRDD to identify, prevent and mitigate the adverse human rights impacts of its business activities (ranging from the production of indiscriminate controversial weapons to the sale of conventional weapons to high-risk actors)?
• What are the avenues for civil society and victim representatives to achieve accountability for civilian harm caused by irresponsible arms transfers?
• What practical challenges are faced by investors in developing exclusionary screening criteria that address the intrinsic risks associated with controversial arms production and high-risk arms trade, including the emergence of new technologies?
• How can financial sector actors promote the implementation of the UNGPs and other global norms that seek to prevent such harms?

Background to the discussion:
As recognised by the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, despite regulatory frameworks, "arms products and services are still exported to States where they are used to commit a wide variety of human rights violations, including potential war crimes and crimes against humanity". Against the backdrop of rising global tensions, investors who seek to avoid portfolio exposure to risks associated with indiscriminate weapons and/or high-risk arms trade are also facing increased calls to financially back the defense sector. The recent exclusion of the arms sector, and large aspects of the financial sector’s activities, from the scope of the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive underscores the need to implement well-established legal and normative frameworks to ensure human rights compliance of states, companies and investors alike.

Background reading:

• UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights. Responsible business conduct in the arms sector: Ensuring business practice in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2022).
• ESG investment framework for the theme: controversial weapons and the trade in weapons with high-risk countries (2020).

Session organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights 

Brief description of the session: 
After a decade of implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), national action plans on business and human rights (NAPs) have increasingly become a mainstay in efforts to promote business and human rights (BHR) in the Asia-Pacific region. Thus far, nine countries have adopted a NAP or similar document. But as civic spaces continue to recede in this region, are these NAPs truly enough to help ensure that business-related human rights abuses are being systematically addressed and prevented? How can NAPs be implemented in ‘hard’ places to ensure that ‘rights-washing’ – whereupon NAPs simply become a box-ticking exercise for States and businesses – does not happen? Will real implementation only happen once mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) measures are put in place? And how can the third pillar of the UNGPs – access to remedy – be better integrated into the design and execution of these plans?

This session brings together experts and practitioners of BHR to assess the effectiveness of NAPs in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as discuss the progress made and challenges that remain in terms of their implementation. Further, speakers will reflect on positive practices that should guide how NAPs are developed, implemented, and enforced. The session will be conducted in a ‘fireside chat’ format, such that speakers are asked to provide frank responses to a series of trigger questions and interactive engagement with the audience will be prioritized.

Key questions: 

• To what extent are the NAPs that have been developed or which are developing in the region aligned with the UNGPs and other key international instruments such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct and the ILO’s MNE Declaration and International Labour Standards?
• How can genuine multi-stakeholder dialogue and participation, including of stakeholders at the grassroots level, be effectively ensured in NAP development and implementation processes?
• When should NAPs be updated and revised? Are there good practices or lessons learned that can be drawn upon in the revision of the NAPs?
• How can ‘rights-washing’ be prevented in the development and implementation of NAPs in the Asia-Pacific region?
• How can we know if a NAP has succeeded or failed?

Additional background documents:

• Working Group’s guidance on NAPs
• Globalnaps.org website

 

Snapshot co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights and the International Cocoa Initiative

In the agricultural sector, child labor is widely recognized as a serious human rights issue, affecting various industries including cocoa production. Over the past decade, both voluntary and mandatory measures have been introduced in producer and consumer countries. On one hand, the private sector has made efforts to integrate human rights due diligence into global supply chains, employing systems such as the Child Labour Monitoring and Remediation System (CLMRS), which has contributed to a significant reduction in child labor. On the other hand, governments in producer countries have implemented policies, action plans, and national systems to address and monitor child labor, while governments in consumer countries have mandated human rights due diligence (HRDD).

This session will review the progress, achievements, and ongoing challenges, examining how a combination of strategies has facilitated the effective implementation of HRDD across the agricultural sector and contributed to the reduction of child labor, with a particular focus on the cocoa industry.

Objectives of the session:
- Reflect on the drivers and obstacles of a smart mix in the agricultural sector
- Share good practices of smart mixes in the actions of States, businesses, and other stakeholders.
- Discuss the impact of MSIs’ involvement in the smart mix of measures

Snapshot co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

Are workplace policies addressing gender-based violence and harassment, accommodating health and safety contingencies for pregnant women, or mandating counseling and services for HIV? Approximately 190 million women work in global supply chains – in the factories, farms, and packing houses that supply the world’s clothing, goods, and food, and yet the average workplace today does not assume accountability for women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights. Businesses can be a key ally for delivering sexual and reproductive health information and services via the workplace to millions of their employees across the world. It is with this in mind that the UNFPA-led Coalition for Reproductive Justice in Business is pleased to host a snapshot session on the sidelines of the OHCHR Business and Human Rights Forum.

The session targeted to c-suite corporate leaders, policy makers, International non-governmental organizations and civil society leaders and UN agency senior leadership representatives will aim to:
* Engage business on their role in advancing the sexual and reproductive health and rights of the women they engage as employees, suppliers, customers and communities;
* Present the recently launched policy paper by UNFPA and Accenture titled, “Advancing Sexual and Reproductive Health in the Private Sector”;
* Build a community of practice with private sector partners who are willing to champion SRHR in the workplace through policies, awareness building programmes, and other actions that enhance access to services for women’s health

Snapshot co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights and IPIS (International Peace Information Service) 

This Snapshot presentation will share grassroots experiences from communities affected by industrial diamond mining across the African continent with various avenues for seeking redress for human rights and environmental harms stemming from diamond mining operations. Despite the diamond mining sector initially spearheading responsible sourcing initiatives with the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme in 2003, many issues persist to date.
Presenters will offer first-hand perspectives from Tanzania and Lesotho, where communities and civil society have actively engaged with companies, government authorities, domestic and foreign courts, and operational-level grievance mechanisms to address corporate human rights and environmental impacts. They have pursued remedies for various issues, including abuses by security forces, pollution, floods, and land compensation disputes, with varying degrees of success. These real-life experiences will be used to provide tangible insights into the challenges and opportunities for human rights protection in mining contexts, and to derive broadly applicable strategies for addressing the complexities of remedy and accountability in the context of industrial mining across Africa.


Additional background documents: 
Challenges in securing access to remedy and restoring community relations after serious human rights abuse at the Williamson diamond mine (Tanzania) – report by the International Peace Information Service (IPIS): https://ipisresearch.be/publication/petra-diamonds-attempts-to-come-clean-with-its-tarnished-past-in-tanzania/

Grassroots impacts of diamond mining and the role of the Kimberly Process – reports, insights and statements by the Kimberly Process Civil Society Coalition: https://www.kpcivilsociety.org

Session co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, in collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Southern Voices

Brief description of the session:
The shift from solely voluntary guidelines to a smart mix of measures that includes an enforceable legislative framework based on Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence (HREDD) could have significant positive impact on the business environment and livelihoods of stakeholders across value chains, including farmers, workers, small and medium-sized enterprises that form the foundation of many global value chains. However, this shift does not come without risks. If not implemented in an inclusive way, taking into account the needs and contexts of different value chain stakeholders, HREDD legislation may impose additional burdens and costs in production countries and/or for businesses, potentially leading to the unintentional exclusion of value chain actors or to disengagement. For an inclusive approach, it is vital to foster an ecosystem that embraces the perspectives of all stakeholders, including those from the Global South.
Therefore, the adoption and implementation of HREDD policies and legislation must be accompanied by meaningful support for all actors in the value chain, including stakeholders in supply chains. This includes empowering them to meet higher sustainability standards. It is essential that local knowledge about the development context, as well as the social and economic dynamics in these regions, be incorporated into the implementation process. This means that HREDD should be contextualized to reflect the diverse aspirations, needs and development contexts of all stakeholders throughout the value chain, including knowledge of the regulatory landscape in production countries.

Article 20 of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) 2024 includes the notion of accompanying measures to make implementation possible in diverse contexts and support companies, stakeholders in supply chains and local producers to conduct meaningful and impactful HREDD. For the directive to be truly effective, it must be implemented in a way that fosters cooperation between buyers, suppliers, and stakeholders in both consumption and production countries.

An inclusive and collaborative approach is essential to ensuring that the directive, as well as other HREDD initiatives, lead to positive outcomes for all value chain actors and to make sure that concerns of potential oversight and invisibilities of critical issues facing the workers and farmers in supply chains are addressed. Open dialogue is crucial to understanding the impact of HREDD legislation on local communities and integrating these insights into policymaking.

Key objectives of the session:
- Strengthening partnerships between value chain actors in consumption and production countries influenced by HREDD legislation.
- Inspiring governments to develop HREDD policies and legislation, by sharing the advantages of HREDD legislation, such as creating level playing fields and competitive advantage of businesses.
- Showcasing EU CSDDD as an example of an enforceable legislative framework related to HREDD, with an implementation process that includes inclusive dialogue, engagement of producer countries and accompanying measures.
- Capturing perspective from the Global South to inform the implementation of HREDD legislation and the development of accompanying support measures.
- Sharing good examples of multistakeholder approaches, partnerships and HREDD activities.
 
 
 

Session co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, the Polish Institute for Human Rights and Business (PL), Y. Mudryi National Law University (UA), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)  
 
Interpretation provided in English, Chinese and Russian. 

Brief description of the session:

Central and Eastern European and Central Asian countries are increasingly taking action to address the adverse impacts of business activities on people and the environment. This trend is being amplified by their varying levels of integration with the European Union—whether as EU member states, countries aspiring for accession, or due to close economic, political and other ties. With the adoption of EU regulations, particularly the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), due diligence requirements in the EU AI Act and CoE Framework Convention on AI and Human Rights, as well as national human rights due diligence requirements in countries like France and Germany, Central and Eastern European and Central Asian countries are facing new expectations. 

This session will explore the practical implications of these recent European legal developments on how business is done in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia, from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. It will focus on how governments are adapting their domestic legal frameworks to align with the new legally binding standards, and how businesses are preparing to meet these new obligations, particularly regarding enhanced human rights due diligence, how AI could be used in human rights due diligence. Furthermore, the session will examine how rights holders in the region can leverage these regulatory developments to ensure their rights are respected and to access effective remedies. 

Key objectives of the session: 

•  Exchange insights on the challenges faced by businesses and governments in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia as they work to meet the new European regulatory requirements, share methodologies for implementation, emerging practices and common mistakes.  
•  Discuss how rights holders, including workers, worker organizations, and civil society groups, can use these regulatory changes to promote better models at national level, demand accountability and access remedies for human rights abuses within the region. 

Snapshot co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights Broederlijk Delen 

As investments into so-called “critical” minerals mining projects expand, local (indigenous) communities are often still left without effective mechanisms to protect their rights and to hold both states and private actors accountable for harm. This raises questions on the effectiveness of existing mechanisms for prevention, accessing justice and remediation that go beyond the particular of specific settings, highlighting the need for cross-continental learning and more coordinated global action for effective protection of human rights in the context of rising mineral demand. This session therefore aims to share insights, lessons and recommendations, drawing from specific experiences in Africa and Latin America.

Snapshot co-organized by the Working Group on business and human rights and the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative 

Human rights and environmental issues are becoming a core consideration for financial institutions (FIs). FIs can play an important role in mitigating and adapting to the triple planetary crisis of biodiversity loss, pollution and climate change and are increasingly investing in the environment, including in the transition to renewable energy. However, for these efforts to contribute to sustainable development, FIs must avoid causing or contributing to negative impacts on human rights. FIs can enhance their positive impact on society by leveraging their influence with clients/investees to promote respect for human rights and enable access to remedy.

In this snapshot session, UNEP FI will outline key actions that the financial sector can take to advance human rights within their organizations. As part of this session, we are also proud to launch the Human Rights Resource Kit, which provides practical step-by-step guidance for banks on how to develop their own human rights policy, undertake human rights due diligence, develop effective grievance mechanisms, and enable access to remedy. The session will also highlight some examples of best practice and current trends in human rights within the financial sector arising from peer-led discussions within the UNEP FI Human Rights Community of Practice.

Snapshot co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, Global Forum of Communities Discriminated on Work and Descent (GFoD) and International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN)

Across the globe, almost 270 million people are discriminated against, based on their present or ancestral occupation (work), descent or inherited status, such as caste. Collectively, they are known as Communities Discriminated on Work and Descent. Their marginalisation in political, social, and economic development is exacerbated further in the context of business activity intersecting with discrimination, leaving them powerless; vulnerable to bonded labour, modern slavery, child labour and hazardous work.

Due to its hidden nature, especially within the complex ecosystems of global supply chains many businesses, particularly those with a global footprint may not be fully aware of the extent to which discrimination based on work and descent influences their supply chains.

A smart mix of measures at national, international, voluntary, and mandatory levels aimed at addressing discrimination based on work and descent as part of broader human rights due diligence processes and just transition strategies must be prioritised.

The Networking Hubs will provide an open platform designed to facilitate exchanges among diverse groups of stakeholders on the Business and Human Rights (BHR) agenda. These spaces are structured to encourage autonomous, participant-led conversations without formal speakers or panelists, fostering a free-flowing exchange of experiences and perspectives. The aim is to create a collaborative peer learning space within stakeholders, where each stakeholder group can directly engage with one another, fostering meaningful dialogue. 

The format of these spaces leverages the networking essence of the Forum, offering a flexible and open environment for different stakeholder groups to share best practices, challenges, and innovative proposals.  

Stakeholder groups: The Networking Hubs will focus on a range of pressing topics, including: 

• Academia: Sharing research insights and theoretical perspectives on BHR developments.  

No interpretation will be provided. 

The Networking Hubs will provide an open platform designed to facilitate exchanges among diverse groups of stakeholders on the Business and Human Rights (BHR) agenda. These spaces are structured to encourage autonomous, participant-led conversations without formal speakers or panelists, fostering a free-flowing exchange of experiences and perspectives. The aim is to create a collaborative peer learning space within stakeholders, where each stakeholder group can directly engage with one another, fostering meaningful dialogue. 

The format of these spaces leverages the networking essence of the Forum, offering a flexible and open environment for different stakeholder groups to share best practices, challenges, and innovative proposals.  

Stakeholder groups: The Networking Hubs will focus on a range of pressing topics, including: 

• Business: Engaging in discussions on corporate responsibility, accountability, and sustainable practices. 

No interpretation will be provided. 

The Networking Hubs will provide an open platform designed to facilitate exchanges among diverse groups of stakeholders on the Business and Human Rights (BHR) agenda. These spaces are structured to encourage autonomous, participant-led conversations without formal speakers or panelists, fostering a free-flowing exchange of experiences and perspectives. The aim is to create a collaborative peer learning space within stakeholders, where each stakeholder group can directly engage with one another, fostering meaningful dialogue. 

The format of these spaces leverages the networking essence of the Forum, offering a flexible and open environment for different stakeholder groups to share best practices, challenges, and innovative proposals.  

Stakeholder groups: The Networking Hubs will focus on a range of pressing topics, including: 

• Professional Advisors: Offering legal, financial, and ethical guidance on navigating BHR challenges. 

No interpretation will be provided. 

Snapshot co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights and Löning – Human Rights & Responsible Business and Ulula (an EcoVadis company)

​An effective grievance mechanism is essential for companies, serving as an early warning system to identify and address risks before they escalate into larger issues. With increasing regulatory requirements and heightened societal expectations, companies are now obligated to create mechanisms that address concerns related to human rights and environmental matters. 

During this session, the speakers will explore the critical role of grievance mechanisms in corporate risk management, emphasising how collaboration strengthens two core elements: accessibility and effective case handling. Accessibility is not just about offering multiple channels—whether digital platforms, face-to-face meetings, or anonymous submissions—but also ensuring these channels are co-designed with input from all stakeholders. By working together, companies can create systems that meet the diverse needs of rights-holders and ensure grievances are captured and addressed in real time to foster greater transparency and trust with stakeholders.

Additionally, the session will tackle one of the most common challenges faced by companies: effective case handling. Companies need to allocate dedicated resources to manage grievances efficiently, but resolving these issues often requires more than internal efforts. By collaborating with external experts, local communities, and civil society organisations, companies can bring in the necessary expertise to resolve grievances in a timely and credible manner. A shared approach to case management ensures that grievances are not only acknowledged but resolved in ways that build long-term trust and accountability.

Session co-organized by the Working Group on business and human rights and 7amleh. 

Interpretation in English, French and Spanish 

(Version française ci-jointe)
(Versión en español adjunta)

Brief description of the session: 
From user-facing platforms to humanitarian tools and services, the tech sector, and in particular social media, has an ever-increasing impact on individuals and groups in the most vulnerable situations, including people of African descent and communities of colour. The failure to address the dissemination of hatred that incites discrimination on social media seriously undermines the promise of business and human rights - that is to provide a framework to prevent and remedy abuses by businesses, including tech companies, of internationally recognized human rights. Where online content moderation systems fail to effectively detect such content, it can risk increasing incitement to violence, and can hinder the enjoyment of a variety of human rights online and offline, including the right to life, the right to physical integrity, the right to health, freedom from non-discrimination,. As the Secretary General of the United Nations indicated in the organization’s Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, hate speech is a menace to democratic values, social stability and peace. 

Regardless of investment and resources, social media companies face specific challenges in their content moderation efforts to mitigate the spread of such harmful content. Electronic communication services, social media platforms and search engines provide an ideal environment for the delivery of a range of narratives, including those that may constitute incitement to discrimination and violence.. Individuals or groups systematically targeted by incitement to violence or discrimination, including racist attacks, are generally left without any effective means of defense, escape or self-protection, and often find themselves in situations of enhanced vulnerability. There is an increasing recognition of the deep impact of such systemic oppressions on mental health. As various studies have shown, harassment alone in comparatively limited environments can expose targeted individuals to extremely elevated and prolonged levels of anxiety, stress, social isolation and depression and significantly increases the risk of suicide, which may amount to psychological torture. Broadly speaking, incitement to discrimination and/or violence, including on the basis of race, not only affects targeted groups of people, but exercises greater influence on society at large, exacerbating divisions,  fractures and strengthening polarization within society. The above-mentioned elements become more meaningful when we consider the rising importance that young people attach to cyberspace, and the latter's potential to influence their choices and values. In this context, this session will explore the potential of collaboration by different stakeholders to ensure a smart mix of measures that leads to a human rights-respecting approach in online content moderation for social media platforms. 

Key objectives of the session: 

• Analyze current initiatives in the context of content moderation in relation to incitement to hatred and discrimination targeting people of African descent and ethnic and racial minorities on social media. 
• Identify good practices and challenges, including a smart mix of measures to protect and respect human rights in the context of social media content moderation. 
• Discuss concrete steps and actions that States, businesses, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders can and should take to implement the UNGPs for social media content moderation, and provide affected individuals and groups with effective access to remedy. 

Key discussion questions: 

• What are the challenges for rights-respecting content moderation, especially in the Global South and in non-English speaking markets?  
• How can social media companies mitigate potential adverse human rights impacts through rights-respecting content moderation and human rights due diligence processes?  

Session co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights and the Indigenous Caucus 

Interpretation provided in English, Spanish and French.

Brief description of the session: 

Globally, there is rapid increase in the demand for land and its resources. Businesses, including investors, are pursuing large-scale land acquisition for economic projects related to  food, fuel, minerals, renewable energy,  and conservation and more.  However, transparency and participation are often lacking in these acquisition processes, enabled by poor or inexistent accountability mechanisms and legal frameworks to protect the rights holders, in particular Indigenous Peoples.
Indigenous Peoples make up more than 6% of the world’s population and hold an estimated 20% of the Earth’s land mass - one-half to one-third of the collectively-held land globally. However, they have formal legal ownership of less than 10% of this land. As a result, their lands are constantly under threat of unfair and forced acquisition for business investments, often leading to  serious abuses  of Indigenous Peoples '  rights  and those of their  defenders.
This session will engage relevant stakeholders in discussing how land acquisitions have been or should  be integrated into businesses human rights due diligence processes across their value chains. It will also explore the types of smart mix of measures that may help governments protect  Indigenous Peoples’ rights in the context of land acquisition, in particular with regard to the requirement to obtain a  Free, Prior and Informed Consent from the concerned Indigenous Peoples. .
Key objectives of the session:
 

• To contextualize the growing trend of large-scale land acquisition for business activities, and their impacts on Indigenous Peoples ' rights.
• To examine  practices and lessons learned regarding  different measures adopted by governments to protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples in the context of large-scale land acquisition.
• To discuss  what kinds of a smart mix of measures could support the Free, Prior and Informed Consent from Indigenous Peoples with regard to land acquisition.
• To discuss emerging practices from businesses, including investors,  to prevent, mitigate and account for adverse impacts of  land acquisitions on Indigenous Peoples rights, including the right of participation and FPIC.

Snapshot co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, and the Legal Innovation for Sustainable Investments Foundation (LISI)

For business to embrace HRDD and ensure effective stakeholder engagement, this needs to be translated into practical steps which can be taken by companies and protected by incorporation into legal structures, in a language which businesses can readily understand. This snapshot will focus on the work of (1) the Legal Innovation for Sustainable Investments (LISI) Foundation in creating an Impact Term Sheet, incorporating legal structures to embed stakeholder due diligence and ongoing consultation into company governance and an Impact Card, allowing businesses to understand how choices of different governance structures increase or decrease the potential for positive impacts and (2) Valuing Impact on integrating the value of human, social and natural capital into decision making, by providing innovative methods, data and experience. 

Relevant web pages: 
https://www.lisi-law.eu/impact-term-sheet
https://www.valuingnature.ch/

Snapshot co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, and Rights CoLab

On September 23, alongside the UN General Assembly and Climate Week, the Taskforce on Inequality and Social-related Financial Disclosures (TISFD) was officially launched. Four years in the making, the Taskforce is a global initiative to co-create, through inclusive governance and process, recommendations and guidance for businesses and financial institutions to understand and report on impacts, dependencies, risks, and opportunities related to people in order to incentivize business and financial practices that create fairer, stronger societies and economies. During this snapshot three Founding Partners will introduce the Taskforce, how it can contribute to the goals of the business and human rights movement, and opportunities for attendees to take part.

For more information: tisfd.org 

Snapshot co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights and the Australian Human Rights Institute at UNSW Sydney

There is an urgent need to develop more sustainable business practices. To achieve this, we need to identify not only where business is currently falling short, but also provide evidence for how specific responsible business approaches that encapsulate HREDD can create positive impact at the scale required to ensure just transitions. This snapshot will focus on an innovative and adaptive business model that aims to disrupt the traditionally obscure diamond supply chain. HB Antwerp, and its subsidiary HB Botswana, employ a business model that is focused on providing radical transparency of the diamond production process with reliance on technological innovations and knowledge transfer to build local capacity.
 
Relevant web page:
https://www.humanrights.unsw.edu.au/research/current-research/transforming-business-practices-global-supply-chains
 

Session co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, IndustriALL, OECD Watch, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) & German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) & German Federal Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs (BMAS)

Interpretation provided in English, Spanish and French.

Brief description of the session: 
The UNGPs emphasize that access to effective remedy for business-related human rights abuses should be enabled through a remedy ecosystem involving complementary State-based judicial mechanisms, State-based non-judicial grievance mechanisms, and non-State-based grievance mechanisms to ensure the best possible outcomes for rightsholders. Guiding Principle 25 lays out that States must take appropriate steps, through judicial, administrative, legislative and other means to ensure that those affected by business-related impacts have access to effective remedies. Furthermore, Guiding Principle 31 sets out the criteria of effectiveness for non-judicial grievance mechanisms to be effective. A key element of effective remedy is the centrality of rights holders and assurance of victims’ own satisfaction with the remedial mechanism and remedy provided.
This session will discuss different types of grievance mechanisms based on experiences from across regions, including state-based and non-state based mechanisms; those based on binding or non-binding regulations; and enforceable and non-enforceable mechanisms. Panelists and the audience will collectively evaluate whether they facilitate effective remedy for victims and reflect on the core strengths of the various approaches.
The session will identify the practices of remedial mechanisms necessary to ensure effective remedy and accountability for corporate impacts. The session will also consider how various paths to remedy can complement each other to give rights holders choice in obtaining a bouquet of remedies suited to the unique circumstances of their case.  

Key objectives of the session:
Provide examples of different grievance mechanisms and cases of successful and unsuccessful remediation to highlight best and less good practice.
Debate whether a smart mix of measures support an effective remedy for victims.
Discuss how the nature of the mechanisms and of outcomes, including in terms of enforceability enable effective remedies for rights holders.
Identify key objective elements needed to ensure victims can access effective remedies, based on practical cases.

Key questions : 
What barriers to effective remedy hinder access through courts and how can these be overcome, including during development of new judicial paths under due diligence and similar legislation?
What elements of internal or cross-company grievance mechanisms are key to ensure victims access to effective remedies?
What benefits can non-judicial grievance mechanisms bring to facilitate access to effective remedies and upon which conditions?
How should companies’ implementation of remedies be enforced and monitored?
What can states do to overcome power imbalances between companies and vulnerable communities seeking remedies?

Background of the discussion:
Binding measures, such as laws, regulations, and judicial processes, can be essential for establishing a strong foundation for accountability, while accountability can also be established by voluntary measures (or grievance mechanisms) in a dialogue-based approach based on binding foundations, or accompanied with sanctions or a rigorous follow up. Indeed, decisions of NHRI, NCP or internal or cross-company grievance mechanisms can bring about significant outcomes for victims in terms of reparation, with victims at the centre. These voluntary mechanisms can be especially important in contexts where legal systems are slow, judicial mechanisms hardly accessible, giving rights holders alternative routes to remedy.

Key background materials
Enhancing the effectiveness of non-State-based grievance mechanisms, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Enhancing the effectiveness of State-based non-judicial mechanisms, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Enhancing the effectiveness of judicial mechanisms
Report on access to effective remedy for business-related human rights abuses (A/72/162), UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights

Session co-organized by the Business and Human Rights Working Group, International Federation for Human Rights.
 
Brief description of the session:
This session seeks to analyze normative, regulatory, public policy and institutional trends in business and human rights in Latin America, to delve into challenges and opportunities to achieve greater effectiveness in the implementation of existing and developing frameworks, as well as to achieve greater access to justice when abuses occur. Given the particularities of the region, the panel will reflect on how due diligence becomes an effective tool for prevention, how to move towards more effective corporate accountability in Latin America, and how substantive participation can be guaranteed, with the voice of those in most vulnerable situations at the center, including an intersectional perspective with an ethnic and gender focus. Likewise, the panel will seek to explore lessons learnt from strategies focused on value chains and from multi-stakeholder initiatives that promote public-private cooperation. Finally, it will seek to reflect on some specific regulatory challenges that arise in Latin America, which has become a strategic region for the just transition, as a supplier of critical minerals and also given its wealth of biodiversity and the need to promote conservation and combat deforestation more effectively.

Key objectives of the session:
This session will seek to analyze normative, regulatory, public policy and institutional trends in business and human rights in Latin America, and their implementation, in order to improve respect for human rights in the context of business activities, achieve greater corporate accountability and advance access to effective and comprehensive remedy, considering the specificities of the regional context, and the approach from the value chains, putting people at the center.

Context of the discussion:
Latin America has made significant progress in the area of business and human rights, materialized in the use of the UNGPs as a common platform for action and a minimum standard for different actors, including governments, companies and investors, civil society, national human rights institutions, among others. However, challenges in the region persist, facing long-standing structural problems that, in some cases, are exacerbated by socio-environmental conflicts that occur within the framework of the activities of national and transnational companies operating in Latin America.
The efforts of States in the region to prevent and mitigate the impacts of the business sector and, eventually, remedy them, have been focused on National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights, and/or on the growing search to develop specific sectoral policies that regulate the economy. Likewise, civil society organizations, as well as some national governments, have begun to promote processes for the elaboration of laws on corporate responsibility to respect human rights and the environment, such as Brazil, Colombia, Peru and Chile. In addition, and considering the globalization of supply chains and the transnational nature of a large part of business operations and impacts, regulatory advances in other regions such as the European Union, and countries such as France, Norway, Germany, among others, are also a key part of the discussions in Latin America.
These regulatory advances take on a particular dimension given the characteristics of the Latin American region, where many countries are major exporters of raw materials and recipients (and competitors) of investments. The persistent negative impacts require the identification of gaps at the regulatory and public policy level, but also the improvement of existing ones, as well as their effective implementation through greater supervision, oversight and technical and budgetary resources, that is, strong public institutions. No less important is improving access to justice, eliminating or minimizing obstacles to comprehensive and effective reparation.
The regulatory and institutional ecosystem that influences and regulates business activities is extremely broad and is made up of constitutional norms, laws and regulations, as well as specific regulatory frameworks such as mining codes and just transition policies, extending to public tendering and contracting regimes, and environmental impact assessment procedures, among others. In order to advance in the respect for human rights in the context of business activities, an smart mix of measures and policy coherence is needed that aims to increase accountability, guarantee greater legal responsibility and better access to remedy.
With this ecosystem as a reference, this session will seek to analyze some normative, regulatory and institutional trends at a regional level and delve into challenges and opportunities to achieve greater effectiveness in the implementation of existing and developing frameworks, as well as greater justice when violations occur, which considers rights holders at the center. Due diligence permeates the discussions on the business and human rights agenda, so this panel seeks to analyze how this foundation of Pillar II of the UNGPs constitutes an effective instrument of prevention, allowing progress towards greater corporate accountability in Latin America, incorporating the specificities of the Latin American legal system, as well as the particularities of the region, and adding the perspective of potentially affected people at the center, guaranteeing effective participation, and the intersectional perspective with an ethnic and gender focus.
The session will reflect on initiatives developed throughout the value chain and the work of multi-stakeholder alliances that allow us to think of creative solutions that have a positive impact on society as a whole, especially on most vulnerable populations. Building innovative solutions challenges us to work together with stakeholders throughout the entire value chain, to achieve mechanisms that contribute to the measurement of impacts (cumulative and synergistic), traceability, social well-being, respect for human rights and care for the environment. Hence the importance of having concrete experiences developed through the value chains of different sectors, based on dialogue and cooperation of stakeholders, at the public and private level.
Finally, the panel will seek to delve into some specific regulatory challenges that arise in new contexts that Latin America is going through, such as that of the just transition. This includes REDD+ projects, whose regulation, in many countries in the region, is insufficient to guarantee the protection of human rights and, in particular, those of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. These new instruments, which arise as a response to the efforts of States to advance strategies to reduce and mitigate greenhouse gases, entail new challenges and tensions at the regulatory and implementation level. Including these particularities in the debate is extremely relevant in Latin America, a region that suffers from high levels of deforestation and that is home to large areas of jungle and forests such as the Amazon and the Gran Chaco, which transcend the border limits of the countries.

Snapshot co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights and Statkraft  

"Safeguarding Human Rights: A Strategic Approach Through Due Diligence in Renewable Energy Projects" focuses on the integration of human rights due diligence in the renewable energy sector, particularly in regions with complex labor markets and inadequate worker protections. The session will explore how a strategic mix of regulatory mandates, CSR initiatives, and voluntary frameworks like the UNGP can help mitigate human rights impacts, especially on vulnerable communities such as migrant workers and indigenous peoples. By examining the challenges and efficacy of these measures during project planning and execution, the session aims to highlight the importance of accountability, transparency, and collaboration in upholding human rights standards throughout the project's lifecycle.

Snapshot co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Pels Rijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn NV

The Zero Draft of European Model Clauses has gone into worldwide consultation in July 2024. These model clauses are aligned with the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), OECD Guidelines and UNGPs and aim to introduce responsible contracting practices in supply chains. This development is also relevant as Article 18 CSDDD prompts the European Commission to develop guidance on model clauses. Whereas contracts are an important means to implement human rights compliance in a legally binding fashion in supply chains, they are an indispensable part of due diligence. However, the current contractual practices in many cases exacerbate human rights impact instead of improving the situation. Therefore, responsible contracting practices should be implemented. In this session the European Model Clauses and their objective to implement responsible contracting practices are introduced as well as the context of the CSDDD in which contracts play an important role.

Background information
The Zero Draft, an introduction and a commentary to the clauses (with general commentary explaining specific Articles, practical guidance on implementation and member state specific observations regarding the Articles) may be accessed at https://www.responsiblecontracting.org/emcs. This site may be referred to for background information.

Snapshot co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights and Proforest

This session will introduce a new Converged Human Rights and Environment Due Diligence (HREDD) Assessment tool, developed by members of AIM-Progress and the Consumer Goods Forum Human Rights Coalition (major FMCG companies), in partnership with Proforest. Its collaborative development was prompted by a desire to support convergence on pre-competitive action on HREDD, reducing assessment fatigue.

This tool will help businesses assess the maturity of a company’s HREDD systems across its own operations and supply chains, including both service and goods providers. It can be used by companies in any goods/service sector. It is a practical, ready to use resource inspired by company best practices to support business-to-business engagement and continuous improvement of businesses’ HREDD maturity.

We will briefly introduce the tool and discuss how it fits into business HREDD strategies. We will present an example of how it is being rolled out in a business, and how the tool can be leveraged as the basis for supplier engagement and improvement in HREDD practices.