13th United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights

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 

Interpretation available in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish, international sign language and closed captioning.

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).
• https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5745-role-mercenaries-mercenary-related-actors-and-private-military

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, Southern Voices for Global Development and Shift

Interpretation available in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish, international sign language and closed captioning.

Brief description of the session:
The shift from voluntary implementation of international due diligence standards to a smart mix of measures that includes binding legislation requiring Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence (HREDD) by companies should have significant positive impacts for people and planet. It should help ensure better livelihoods for farmers, workers, small and medium-sized enterprises that form the foundation of many global value chains. It should also help drive more sustainable business models and create a level playing field for companies that are already investing in aligning their operations with the international standards.

However, implementing HREDD legislation will be complex. International cooperation and accompanying measures are important for a soft landing of HREDD legislation. Implementing HREDD legislation should be done in an inclusive way, taking into account the needs and contexts of different stakeholders in global value chains. This is essential for reducing burdens and costs for businesses in production countries, preventing the unintentional exclusion of value chain actors and promoting responsible engagement, rather than disengagement. The latter would have clear negative effects on the very stakeholders whose rights are most at risk from the current ways in which global value chains operate and whose perspectives are central to meaningful human rights due diligence.

The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) is a landmark opportunity to advance responsible business conduct and sustainability, requiring large companies in the European Union (EU) to conduct HREDD. Significantly, the Directive expects the EU and its Member States to adopt accompanying measures to support implementation in diverse contexts.

For the Directive to be truly effective, it must be implemented in a way that takes into account the perspectives and local knowledge of stakeholders in value chains within due diligence and that fosters cooperation between buyers and suppliers in consumption and production countries. Implementation should involve meaningful support for affected stakeholders, local producers and companies in production countries that recognizes the distinct challenges they face and helps enable the business partners of EU buying companies to meet higher sustainability standards. If implementation is responsive to the diverse aspirations, needs and development contexts of stakeholders throughout the value chain, it can provide for a soft landing of the CSDDD/HREDD legislation, support businesses and partner countries, as well as deliver on its positive outcomes.

Key objectives of the session:

• Modeling open dialogue between government, business and civil society stakeholders on what is needed to ensure the impactful implementation of HREDD legislation (specifically EU CSDDD), directly informed by perspectives from the Global South.
• Demonstrating why strengthened partnerships between value chain actors in consumption and production countries will be essential to the success of HREDD legislation in practice.
• Encouraging governments to support HREDD legislation by sharing the advantages for business and for affected stakeholders if it is implemented in an inclusive way involving dialogue, engagement of producer countries and supportive accompanying measures.
• Sharing good examples of multistakeholder approaches, partnerships and inclusive implementation of HREDD.

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

Interpretation available in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish, international sign language and closed captioning.

(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, French and Portuguese.

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.