13th United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights

Session co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, The Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with disabilities, the ILO Global Business and Disability Network, the Disability Rights Fund and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

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


Brief description of the session: 
Building on last year’s session on Disability Rights as part of Business and Human Rights: Broadening the Discussion, this year’s session has a specific focus on "reasonable accommodation", sometimes referred to as “reasonable adjustments”, as a crucial element for upholding the rights of persons with disabilities in the context of business activities, and for strengthening their inclusion in all aspects of society. Reasonable accommodation aims to provide equal opportunities for employees at the workplace, so their skills and talents can be used to full capacity. By recognizing and accommodating individual needs, businesses create work environments that truly welcome the diversity of their staff and contribute to business activities.
By examining this concept and discussing how to implement reasonable accommodation effectively, the session seeks to identify best practices, challenges, and opportunities that ensure equal enjoyment and exercise of human rights. It aims to develop a better understanding of how to provide reasonable accommodations effectively, as well as to expand the understanding of reasonable accommodation beyond workplace settings, examining its relevance in various contexts such as education, healthcare, and public services.
 
Background to the discussions:
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) includes the core concept of "reasonable accommodation". This refers to the necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, which are needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities have the enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights. The denial of reasonable accommodation amounts to discrimination. Providing necessary adjustments in the workplace and beyond is in line with the State duty to protect and the business responsibility to respect under the UNGPs. Governments discharge of their duty to adopt and enforce laws and policies that protect the rights of persons with disabilities and businesses ensure the well-being and dignity of employees with disabilities, and those employees with dependants with disabilities. As such, reasonable accommodation is a critical component of the care and support agenda.
In the context of the business and human rights agenda, reasonable accommodation plays a pivotal role in ensuring that workplaces are inclusive and accessible. As businesses recognize the value of diversity and the economic benefits of an inclusive workforce, understanding the legal and ethical implications of reasonable accommodation becomes essential.

Key objectives of the session:

• Deepen understanding of the linkages between disability rights and the business and human rights agenda, particularly in relation to the business responsibilities and benefits  related to the provision of reasonable accommodations.
• Identification of good practices and innovative approaches to providing reasonable accommodation across different sectors and from various perspectives.
• Strengthen networks among participants to foster ongoing collaboration and shared learning on disability rights and business practices.

• Improve understanding on how insights from persons with disabilities can provide governments and businesses valuable context regarding the real-life implications of reasonable accommodation, ensuring that policies reflect the needs and rights of persons with disabilities.

Background documents:
Promoting diversity and inclusion through workplace adjustments: A practical guide (2016)
This guide aims to explain the concept of reasonable adjustments (“reasonable accommodation”) and provide practical step-by-step guidance on how and when these should be provided in the workplace.

• Download in English: Promoting diversity and inclusion through workplace adjustments: A practical guide
• Download in French: Promouvoir la diversité et l’inclusion grâce à des ajustements sur le lieu de travail: guide pratique
• Download in Spanish: Fomentando la diversidad y la inclusión mediante ajustes en el lugar de trabajo: una guía práctica

CRPD/C/GC/8: General comment No. 8 (2022) on the right of persons with disabilities to work and employment
CRPD/C/GC/6: General comment No.6 on equality and non-discrimination

Co-organised by the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, UN Human Rights B-Tech Project, Ranking Digital Rights and UN Global Compact   
 
Brief description of the session: 
This session will explore how human rights of different stakeholder groups may be adversely impacted by artificial intelligence (“AI”) and discuss how the smart mix of measures in the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (“UNGPs”) can address such impacts.

To inform the discussion, this session will present the results of thematic and regional work with regard to children and digital technologies, gender perspectives, engagement with stakeholders in diverse geographies as well as dialogue with policymakers seeking to govern AI.

Key topics to be discussed include: (1) how the development, deployment, and use of AI systems may pose human rights risks to specific stakeholder groups across diverse geographies; and (2) how processes by business enterprises and other actors to address these risks could be informed by the UNGPs and (3) how the UNGPs and stakeholder views can guide States towards adopting an effective “smart mix of measures” for requiring technology companies to respect human rights when developing and using new technologies.
The session will feature panelists representing the UN human rights office, UN Global Compact companies developing and deploying AI , civil society, and other stakeholders.
 
AI continues to change our information ecosystem and daily modes of working relationships. Information about the extent to which human rights due diligence has been conducted taking into account the specific needs of different stakeholder groups across diverse geographies in relation to value chains in the technology sector is limited. There has been little opportunity for learning across the tech industry and among companies designing, developing and deploying AI about effective approaches to meaningfully engage with diverse stakeholders across different socio-economic contexts with the goal to prevent and mitigate human rights risks linked to advances in AI.
There is thus an urgent need to explore how the voices and needs of stakeholders can be integrated into business operations in relation to AI. Identifying appropriate responses to this question and building alignment across industry, civil society and standard setters about expectations should draw on international human rights standards. In particular, the expectations set out in the UNGPs can provide authoritative and widely accepted guidance. Using these global standards as the initial basis for unpacking the scope and nature of corporate responsibilities can also provide a common foundation for constructive and robust dialogue.

Key objectives of the session: 
- To present insights about specific needs of stakeholder groups in order for businesses to respect human rights in the AI space, including community-led approaches
- To summarise current promising practices and gaps in AI risk mitigation in diverse geographies.
- To discuss the implications of the UNGPs for AI regulation.
- To propose next steps for policy-makers, businesses and civil society to ensure that AI roll-out globally is conducted in a rights-respecting manner.

Background reading:
- Headlines and Recommendations from the GenAI B-Tech Foundational paper
- Advancing Responsible Development and Deployment of Generative AI. A UN B-Tech foundational paper
- Taxonomy of Generative AI Human Rights Harms, a B-Tech Gen AI Project supplement
- Overview of Human Rights and Responsible AI Company Practice, a B-Tech Gen AI Project supplement
- Harvard Carr Center Discussion Paper "Fostering Business Respect for Human Rights in AI Governance and Beyond: A Compass for Policymakers to Align Tech Regulation with the UNGPs"
- B-Tech Stakeholder engagement paper
- UN Global Compact: Report on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights
UN Global Compact & Accenture Report: Gen AI for the Global Goals: The Private Sector’s Guide to Accelerating Sustainable Development with Responsible Technology

Session organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights

Brief Session Description: 
Migrant workers are especially at risk of a range of business-related human rights abuses, including forced labour, precarious employment, wage theft, discrimination, xenophobia, and social exclusion. Undocumented or irregular migrant workers are at even greater risk – often being those ‘left furthest behind’ in society. These risks are further compounded by systematic barriers to accessing justice and effective remedies. To better understand the experiences of transnational migrant workers in particular, this consultation aims to explore the key business and human rights challenges that they currently face in different countries and regions. It also seeks to learn about the positive practices undertaken by Governments and businesses to address these challenges, including through the conduct of human rights due diligence, and distill lessons on how access to justice and to remedy for migrant workers can be improved in the context of global value chains.

This session is a multistakeholder consultation for the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights’ 2025 thematic report to the General Assembly on the theme of ‘Migration, Business and Human Rights’. To inform this report, the consultation seeks insights on how States and businesses are or are not upholding their respective duty and responsibility to protect and respect the rights of migrant workers, in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Given that the primary focus of the report will be on migrant workers in a cross-border context, the Working Group especially welcomes interventions from the floor on issues that arise relation to transnational labour migration.

The session will feature ‘trigger speakers’ who will jumpstart the consultation by sharing their insights on the current situation with respect to the protection of migrant workers at the global level and on the ground. The speakers will also reflect on how the Guiding Principles should be upheld by States and businesses alike in relation to the treatment of migrant workers, posing questions for the audience to consider.


Guiding Questions:

• What are the salient human rights challenges faced by migrant workers in the context of transnational labour migration and global supply chains?
• What are the major gaps relating to the protection of migrant workers in existing regulatory frameworks at the national, regional and global levels?
• What are some constructive examples of Governments and businesses protecting and respecting the rights of migrant workers?
• What role can investors and consumers, in particular, play in promoting ethical business practices and holding companies accountable for business-related human rights abuses in their value chains?
• How effective are current State-based and non-State-based judicial and non-judicial mechanisms in ensuring access to remedy for migrant workers?
• What are the main components of an effective operational-level grievance mechanism for migrant workers?
• How can policy and regulatory measures, including national action plans on business and human rights and mandatory human rights due diligence legislation, contribute to improved access to remedy for migrant workers?

Relevant Resources:

• Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM): https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n18/451/99/pdf/n1845199.pdf
• OHCHR, ‘We wanted workers, but human beings came’ : Human rights and temporary labour migration programmes’ (2022): https://bangkok.ohchr.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Report-on-temporary-labour-migration-programme-final-250123.pdf
• IOM, ‘Access to Justice for Migrant Workers and Victims of Trafficking for Labour Exploitation’ (2023): https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/pub2024-023-r-access-to-justice-for-migrant-workers-and-victims.pdf
• ILO, ‘International labour migration: A rights-based approach’ (2010): https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_protect/@protrav/@migrant/documents/publication/wcms_208594.pdf

Session co-organized by the Working Group on business and human rights, the Investor Alliance for Human Rights and Principles for Responsible Investment

Interpretation available in English, French and Spanish

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

Brief description of the session:
A just transition refers to the transition to a green and zero-carbon economy that is fair and inclusive, creates decent work opportunities, reduces poverty and inequalities and upholds the human rights of workers, including in the informal sector, and affected communities, in particular Indigenous Peoples and populations affected by environmental degradation and energy poverty, through social dialogue and meaningful participation in decision-making including on the use of land and natural resources (See A/78/155). Thus, a just transition includes environmental, social, economic, climate change and human rights aspects. Just transition programmes will require adequate and appropriate financing from the private sector, including contributions from the financial sector (like institutional investors and banks). Some States have started introducing a few financial incentives and regulatory measures for businesses and investors to enable a just transition. However, regulatory gaps remain.

Beyond financing and investing in environmentally sustainable business and projects, financial sector actors have various forms of leverage they can exercise to push businesses and States to support sustainable business practices and a global economy. These include stewardship activities targeting investees or responsibly advocating for the creation of an enabling environment, and government incentives and public-private partnerships that address the environmental and social risks inherent to this transition. These all have strengths and limitations. Further, investors and banks must overcome environmental, social and governance (ESG) silos in approaches to sustainability, as a just transition necessitates understanding how environmental, sustainable development and human rights impacts are inextricably intertwined.

Key objectives of the session:
In a complex landscape, a smart mix of both good guidance and targeted regulation plays a role in maximizing the leverage of financial actors to contribute to a just transition. With a focus on renewable energy, and critical energy transition minerals, the panel will discuss key recommendations around how a smart mix of measures, both on sustainable finance and for the real economy, can be implemented to ensure effective policy and finance sector action towards the just transition.

Key discussion questions:

• What leverage can the financial sector and States bring to bear in the transition to a green economy?
• How are those forms of leverage impactful and what are their limitations?
• How can a smart mix of regulatory and voluntary measures and incentives help overcome those limitations and enable a just transition? 

Background to the discussion

• UN Working Group on business and human rights, Investors, Environmental, Social and Governance Approaches and Human Rights (A/HRC/56/55)
• UN Working Group on business and human rights, Extractive Sector, Just Transition and Human Rights (A/78/155)
• UN Working Group on business and human rights, Taking stock of investor implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, (A/HRC/47/39/Add.1)
• OHCHR, Key messages on human rights and a just transition
• Investor Alliance for Human Rights, Investor Guidance : https://investorsforhumanrights.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2024-01/FINAL%20ASI%2C%20HCIJ%2C%20IAHR%20Investor%20Guidance%202.pdf
• Investor Alliance for Human Rights,  Policy Brief: https://investorsforhumanrights.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2024-01/FINAL%20ASI%2C%20HCIJ%2C%20IAHR%20Policy%20Brief%20%281%29.pdf
• PRI Discussion paper: The socioeconomic implications of the transition
• Taskforce on Net Zero Policy Interconnected Justice: Understanding the cross-border implications of climate transition policies
• ICCR’s Investor Brief on Transition Minerals https://www.iccr.org/reports/the-importance-and-risks-of-transition-minerals-in-building-a-just-transition/

Session co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, Alliance 8.7, in collaboration with the International Labour Organization, International Organisation of Employers, and International Trade Union Confederation

Brief description of the session: 
Reflecting on the urgent need to eliminate child and forced labour from supply chains in alignment with SDG target 8.7, this session will consider how partnerships can play a crucial role in tackling these challenges. It does so within the broader context of promoting fundamental principles and rights at work (FPRW), which include the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour; the effective abolition of child labour; and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. The session will also bring experts and practitioners together to provide an overview of the key challenges relating to FPRW, specifically forced and child labour, and assess how effective partnership initiatives have been in tackling these amid changing policy and legal environments.

Several initiatives exist to promote FPRW such as the UN Global Compact and Alliance 8.7. With addressing child and forced labour in supply chains as its priority, Alliance 8.7 is a global multistakeholder partnership that brings together over 200 partners and member States to accelerate action towards SDG target 8.7. It provides a platform for partners to share information, promising practices, lessons learned, collaborate and demonstrate progress. This session will, thus, focus on distilling the lessons learned from Alliance 8.7 as a potential roadmap for future collaborations.
 
Key objectives of the session: 

• Discuss how the ‘smart mix of measures’, including national action plans on business and human rights, economic incentives, and due diligence by both the public and private sectors, can be used effectively by Governments to create an enabling environment for partnerships with the private sector to tackle child labour, forced labour and other FPRW abuses.
• Exchange insights on the drivers and obstacles faced by Governments and businesses in preventing and addressing risks and abuses related to FPRW.
• Propose pathways for how FPRW, alongside the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, can be protected and respected in supply chains.

Key questions: 

• What positive practices from Governments, businesses, employers and workers’ organizations, and other social actors have proved central to improving outcomes in relation to the prevention of FPRW abuses, especially forced and child labour?
• How can the voices of affected rightsholders be amplified, including through employer and workers’ organizations, to contribute to upholding FPRW and the Guiding Principles?
• How can global partnership initiatives, such as Alliance 8.7, contribute to strengthening an inclusive approach to the development of a smart mix of measures and foster policy coherence?

 
Background to Alliance 8.7: 
As a global multistakeholder partnership, Alliance 8.7 provides data and technical guidance to employers’ organizations and their members, including SMEs, to conduct effective due diligence, in collaboration with governments. It also looks at strengthening the capacity of employers and workers’ organizations to represent the collective voice of their members and address the specific needs of most vulnerable workers in supply chains.

Businesses can participate directly in Alliance 8.7 by joining specialized business initiatives: the Global Business Network on Forced Labour breaks silos by linking up business actors from across sectors and geographies to eradicate forced labour. It supports its 22 members to engage with government bodies, to find sustainable solutions to address the structural drivers of forced labour. The Child Labour Platform brings together 30 multinational corporations across sectors, to address the root causes of child labour in their supply chains, particularly in the extraction or production of global commodities where child labour is most prevalent.
 
Additional background documents:
Alliance 8.7, ‘Ending child labour, forced labour and human trafficking in global supply chains’ (2019): https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/%40ed_norm/%40ipec/documents/publication/wcms_716930.pdf

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


Brief description of the session: 
This session will explore different policies and regulations, both globally and in the different regions and how they have proved effective or not in improving the situation for (W)HRDs, Indigenous Peoples, and afro-descendent communities at risk, and what needs to be done.

This session is a joint session developed with the UNWG and Zero Tolerance Initiative members and allies: Accion Ecologica, AFRILAW, Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP), Business and Human Rights Resource Center, CEMSOJ, Forest Peoples Programme (FPP), Greater Whange Residents Trust, International Lawyers Project, International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), The Indigenous Peoples Rights International (IPRI), Jamaa Resource Initiatives, Marginalised Mirror, Peace Brigades International (PBI), Protection International, Star Kampuchea, Swedwatch and Talent des Femmes Rurales.

Key objectives of the session:
To explore if different policies, voluntary measures, and regulations in different regions have contributed to improving the situation for Indigenous Peoples, afro-descendent communities and (W)HRDs at risk.
To reflect critically on the extent to which these smart mix initiatives have proved (in)effective, especially for rights-holders, and what would be the next steps that States and businesses need to implement to guarantee the protection of (W)HRDs.
 
Key questions: 
- How are (W)HRDs, Indigenous Peoples, and Afro-descendent communities being impacted by business operations?
- Have different measures in the “smart mix” effectively contributed to improved protection for (W)HRDs, Indigenous Peoples, and Afro-descendent communities from the risks posed by large-scale projects?
- How have companies developed zero tolerance / human rights defender policies, and what do these policies typically look like in practice? 
- In what ways are companies implementing HRD policies across different regions, and how are they ensuring that these policies provide real protection for defenders, Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendent rightsholders?
- What are the key components of an effective corporate HRD policy, and how do companies ensure its practical application when human rights defenders are under threat?
- What challenges have companies faced when implementing HRD policies, and how are they overcoming them to ensure meaningful protection and engagement?
- Have state regulations in public procurement, which include human rights-related requirements, proved effective or not in improving the situation for Indigenous Peoples, afro-descendent communities and (W)HRDs at risk?
- In what ways have (W)HRDs, Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendent communities been included in the development, implementation and evaluation or accountability of HRD policies, and what challenges remain? 
- What are the main limitations or failings of the current "smart mix" policies in ensuring transparency and meaningful engagement with Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendent communities in development projects?
- Can community-led protection mechanisms, like Indigenous community protocols, offer more effective alternatives to top-down measures?
- What lessons can be drawn from bottom-up approaches led by Indigenous and Afro-descendent communities in shaping measures that truly protect (W)HRDs?
- Why is it important to move toward binding rules—whether national, regional, or international—when it comes to corporate accountability, covering protections for human rights defenders (HRDs), Indigenous Peoples, and Afro-descendent communities?
- What progress is being made across different regions and other regions toward establishing binding regulations to hold companies accountable for human rights abuses?

Background of the discussion:
13 years on from the UNGPs adoption, which includes the notion of the “Smart mix” of measures, the concept has so fallen short with regards to concrete improvements for (W)HRDs, Indigenous Peoples and afro-descendent communities. These groups continue to face relentless threats, attacks, criminalisation and killings for their work protecting the land, the environment and the planet. Global Witness has recorded 1,910 killings of land and environmental defenders since the launch of the UNGPs in 2011. HRDs who confront business interests are among those defenders most at risk.
Systemic and transformative changes are needed to address the root causes of attacks and killings of Indigenous Peoples, afro-descendent communities and (W)HRDs. Effective legislation and regulation need to be put in place to protect against human rights harm by businesses.
 
This session will explore different policies and regulations, both globally and in the different regions and how they have proved effective or not in improving the situation for Indigenous Peoples, afro-descendent communities and (W)HRDs at risk, and what needs to be done. It will also look into business practice and address challenges and opportunities for improvement.

Additional background documents: 
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: guidance on ensuring respect for human rights defenders, UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights 2021. This report by the UN Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises unpacks for States and business the normative and practical implications of the UNGPs in relation to protecting and respecting the vital work of human rights defenders. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Formatted-version-of-the-guidance-EN_0.pdf

Zero Tolerance Resource Hub - There is a growing body of standards, frameworks, tools, and guidance on corporate policies that commit to not tolerate or contribute to attacks against Human Rights Defenders (HRDs). The Zero Tolerance Initiative serves as a platform to coordinate civil society and rightsholder engagement in developing these materials. This hub collates resources to provide accountability tools for Indigenous Peoples, rural and Afro-descendent organisations and communities, and Environmental Human Rights Defenders (EHRDs) to advocate for and track company policy commitments and their implementation. https://www.zerotoleranceinitiative.org/zero-tolerance-policies
Committing to protections for Human Rights Defenders, Zero Tolerance Initiative, 2024, This document presents recommendations on minimum requirements for the development of private sector policies and procedures regarding protections for HRDs. https://www.zerotoleranceinitiative.org/committing-to-protections-for-human-rights-defenders

Declaration on Human Right Defenders +25, A supplement to the UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: 25 years on; 20241003-DeclarationOnHumanRightsDefendersPlus25-web.pdf

Indicators on how to track businesses' respect of the rights of HRDs, ISHR
2024. This set of indicators is designed to provide companies with guidance on the responsibility of business to respect the rights of human rights defenders and to support civic freedoms. https://ishr.ch/defenders-toolbox/resources/business-and-hu

Session co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, The International Trade Centre (ITC), the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), the German Helpdesk, and UN Global Compact.

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

Brief description
Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) account for 90% of businesses and 50-60% of employment worldwide: they are overwhelmingly present in economic activities around the world. SMEs are vital to economic growth and job creation globally, including when operating in environments where human rights risks are heightened, especially in conflict-affected areas. SMEs frequently lack the enabling legal and policy environment, the incentives, as well as the resources and knowledge to implement effectively the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), which may affect their potential of integrating human rights due diligence in their daily operations. This session aims to consider ways to strengthen the capacity of SMEs to address these matters.
It is essential for SMEs to gain awareness about their responsibilities under the UNGPs and build capacities. In addition, the introduction of new regulations with global reach, including the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and national human rights due diligence requirements in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Norway, present SMEs with new challenges and expectations. These new mandatory requirements expect governments to provide support and guidance to SMEs and businesses to devise collaborative approaches.
This session will aim to empower SMEs with the knowledge and tools necessary to incorporate the UNGPs, especially human rights due diligence, into their operations to ensure that they can action better their responsibilities to respect human rights. It also aims to foster sustainable business practices by SMEs and position them as important potential agents for positive transformative local change to reduce adverse human rights impacts from business activities.

Objectives

• Increase awareness and understanding of the importance for SMEs to integrate human rights due diligence into business operations, including for SMEs in conflict-affected areas.
• Assist participants with practical tools and resources to implement human rights due diligence and foster responsible business practices. This would also include guidance on conducting human rights impact assessments, stakeholder engagement, and effective grievance mechanisms.
• Foster stakeholder engagement with SMEs, particularly from supply chain end points, associations, regulators and governments (e.g., through legislation, trade policies, and diplomacy for cross-border cooperation enabling HRDD).
• Explore challenges SMEs face in taking action and highlight best practices of SMEs that have effectively integrated responsible business practices into their business models.
• Share resources available for SMEs, including training programs, online-tools, helpdesks, funding opportunities, and partnerships with civil society.

Relevant documents and tools
German Helpdesk on Business and Human Rights: Website and Two-Pager
Responsible Business Helpdesks: Information Sheet
CSR Risk Check
SME Compass
Business and Human Rights Navigator
Guideline on HRDD for SMEs
Guideline on Collaboration in the Supply Chain (in the context of the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act)

Session co-organized by the Working Group on business and human rights and the Office for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

Interpretation available in English, French and Spanish

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

Brief description of the session: 
The use of litigation to achieve progress on climate change and human rights has nearly tripled since the Paris Agreement was reached in 2015. More recently, in 2022 the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 76/300, recognising “the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right”. This recognition followed the UN Human Rights Council resolution 48/13 which acknowledged the right in October 2021. As activists and civil society organizations are increasingly seeking to hold States and businesses accountable for their role in contributing to the multiple planetary crises and related harm to human rights, including those of future generations, climate litigation is being used as a tool to influence policy outcomes or change corporate behaviour. Climate litigation has shown its potential to lead to a smart mix of measures to address climate change and uphold human rights by strengthening regulation, incentives, policies, corporate practices, and benchmarking. This has in turn led to an increased emphasis on the role of businesses, including their need to conduct human rights due diligence with environmental dimensions. While some emerging multistakeholder initiatives are trying to tackle these issues, the question remains of how States and businesses can better collaborate with civil society organizations and other stakeholders to raise awareness and increase implementation of human rights-respecting frameworks in the context of climate change.      

Key objectives of the session: 

• Provide an overview of climate change and human rights litigation globally and regionally. 
• Set out the case and evidence for putting climate change and human rights into the boardroom, through the lens of a human rights-based economy.  
• Highlight opportunities and benefits for States and businesses to accelerate their actions on climate change and human rights, by addressing commonly perceived barriers.  
• Discuss tangible steps on how different stakeholder groups and rightsholders can move forward to ensure the effective promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, including implementation.  

 
Additional background documents: 

• UN Working Group on business and human rights communication to Saudi Aramco and financial institutions on climate change and human rights  
• UN Working Group on business and human rights Information note on climate change and the UNGPs  
• UN Working Group on business and human rights report on Extractive sector, just transition and human rights (A/78/155) 
• UN Working Group on business and human rights Open let

Session co-organized by the the Working Group on Business and Human Rights and the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva (Chair-Rapporteur of the OEIGWG) 

Brief description of the session:
At its 26th session, on 26 June 2014, the Human Rights Council adopted resolution 26/9 by which it decided “to establish an open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights (OEIGWG), whose mandate shall be to elaborate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises.” Since 2015, the OEIGWG has held nine sessions, with increasing participation by States and other relevant stakeholders taking part in the discussions and deliberations. Among the key objectives of the process, there is the need to strengthen victims' access to justice and effective remedy for business related human rights abuses through binding regulations. A legally binding instrument (LBI) aims to complement and reinforce existing applicable human rights norms and standards, such as those enshrined in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and in other relevant ILO and OECD instruments.

The UNGPs on business and human rights constitute a milestone in terms of standard setting, acknowledging that in order to foster business respect for human rights, States need to consider a “smart mix of measures”: national, international, mandatory and voluntary. A future international legally binding instrument could include, and incentivize the adoption of, a number of such mix of measures.

As an important step forward, at its 56th session, on 11 July 2024, the Human Rights Council adopted by consensus decision 56/116 to enhance the support capabilities of the open-ended intergovernmental working group (OEIGWG), with the mandate to convene up to 10 full-day intersessional thematic consultations, with the assistance of the selected legal experts, for the purpose of discussing clusters of articles of the draft LBI currently being negotiated in line with the mandate established by HRC Res. 26/9.

Furthermore, the LBI process echoes the current trend in the field of business and human rights to move towards a mandatory legal framework to increase accountability at the national level, with some countries developing their mandatory human rights due diligence legislation or in the process of doing so. At the regional level, another key development is this year’s adoption of the European Union Corporate Sustainable Due Diligence Directive (CS3D), which sets out a corporate due diligence duty for large companies to identify and address adverse human rights and environmental impacts in their own operations, those of their subsidiaries and in their chain(s) of activities.
While progress has been made in such process, broad and active participation of all actors, particularly States, is still necessary to enrich the process and to build on and achieve consensus on key aspects of a LBI.

Key objectives of the session: 
As 2024 marks the 10^th anniversary of the LBI process, this session aims to provide a broader reflection about the process, including by identifying areas where progress has been made and where challenges remain.

It will also seek to facilitate the stock-taking and lesson-sharing between States and other relevant stakeholders, on how binding and non-binding instruments could complement and reinforce each other, in light of the conclusions of the 9th session of the OEIGWG and the recommendations of the Chair-Rapporteur, and the aforementioned concrete recent legal developments, trends, challenges and good practices in preventing and addressing business-related human rights abuses.
 

Key questions
- How can future negotiations capitalize on the progress made to overcome the remaining challenges and conclude the elaboration of the international LBI?
- Precisely, how can States across all regions and all relevant stakeholders, including affected communities, contribute constructively to identifying possible convergence and building consensus around the most sensitive issues of the updated draft LBI?

Background to the discussion
Ecuador, in its capacity as Chair-Rapporteur of the OEIGWG, submitted the Third Revised Draft (Rev.3) in 2021, which sought to further align its provisions with existing instruments and frameworks, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the ILO Tripartite Declaration on Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, and other relevant ILO instruments, as well as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, among others, under a pragmatic and progressive approach.
 
The Rev.3 of the LBI presented before the 7th session (2021), with the concrete textual proposals submitted by States in that session, was the basis for the discussions during the 8th session (2022). Additionally, as a contribution of the Chair-Rapporteur to advance the discussions and facilitate negotiations, the document “Suggested Chair Proposals” on some specific articles of the text was presented before the 8th session.
 
Finally, an updated draft LBI was presented on 31 July 2023, as the basis for the State-led direct substantive intergovernmental negotiations during the 9th session of the Working Group (Geneva, 23-27 October 2023).
 
The reports of previous sessions and the documents for the 9th session can be found at http://rb.gy/fuor4.
 
The 10th session of the Working Group will take place from 16 to 20 December 2024 at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.

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.