Gender Component of Internal Displacement in Ukraine: A Case of Business (In)Capability to Localize Human Rights Impact Assessment

Human rights due diligence (HRDD) has become the buzzword of much of the advocacy and work today around business and human rights.1 It is almost commonplace that companies have the responsibility to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address these adverse human rights impacts as part of their ongoing HRDD processes, in line with the UNGPs.2 The assessment of human rights impacts (HRIA) is a critical step in this process.3

Business and Human Rights: Rebuilding Trust for a New Social Contract (A series of events within the framework of the IV Kharkiv International Legal Forum)

A series of events on business and human rights that took place during the IV KharkivInternational Legal Forum in September 2020 is overviewed.The central topic of the discussions is the question of the possibility (or inevitability) of a newsocial contract, where, along with society and the state, business should become a party. The business’simpact on the daily people life and even on the state itself is becoming more and more significant.Business is seen as a direct bearer of human rights responsibilities, especially in situations where the state is too weak to protect human rights, or when it comes to an area of autonomous space in whichthe state should not interfere.Society needs to develop mechanisms that would guarantee the compliance of non-state regulationestablished by business with fundamental legal values – respect for human dignity, justice, freedom,equality. The questions of the application of the requirements of the rule of law to the sphere of suchnon-state regulation, its role in the moments of democratic transformations in societies, as well ason the mechanism of “checks and balances” in a situation when business is outside state control areactualized. Business responsibilities in situations of global dangers should be the subject of an analysisas well. Corporate responsibility to respect human rights, human rights due diligence, non-stateremedies to protect human rights – these and other concepts that are becoming an integral part oflegal practice today require rethinking from legal theory.Scientists, representatives of government entities and business, civil society organizations from30 countries took part in the events.

Mandatory Corporate Human Rights Due Diligence Models: Shooting Blanks?

The major stakeholders, including states (at least, in the global North) and transnational corporations (TNCs), have radically changed their attitude to the idea of mandatory human rights due diligence in the last decade. By asking what is behind these good intentions, and whether the mandatory corporate human rights due diligence models enforced so far are effective or represent an exercise in shooting blanks, and by combining a legal positivistic perspective with studies on governance and the production of knowledge, this article contributes to the legal and socio-legal assessment of these changes Assessing the effectiveness of mandatory corporate human rights due diligence, this article discusses the inherent or implied features of this regulatory tool which restrict its ability to serve as an instrument to protect human rights. A special focus is made on two main restrictions that are specific for human rights due diligence: the regulatory boundary revealed in the auxiliary character of due diligence and its limed ability to serve as a standard of conduct, and the epistemic boundary, deriving from the conflicting role of companies as the architects and executives of knowledge production. To a certain extent, the legislative process can counterbalance some of these restrictions by setting up the substantive, precise obligations of companies, and by creating mechanisms of control and remediation. However, the analysis of nine different instruments reveals that neither states, nor the EU have used the potential of the regulatory force.

The EU Whistleblowing Directive: An Opportunity for (Operationalizing) Corporate Human Rights Grievance Mechanisms?

Despite being an internationally accepted corporate social responsibility framework, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights have not managed to provide victims of corporate human rights violations with access to remedy. The European Commission has announced plans to introduce an EU-level human rights due diligence directive which may include corporate grievance mechanisms. This article considers potential synergies between the planned directive and the mechanism laid down in the Whistleblowing Directive. Three issues are highlighted. First, stakeholders usually face retaliation after making a complaint about human rights abuses in a company’s operations. By setting formal levels of protection against retaliation, the Whistleblowing Directive offers a regulatory framework to change this reality. Second, conducting effective human rights due diligence must be based on meaningful consultation with all relevant stakeholders. If companies approach this issue in a top-down manner using auditing firms, they risk non-compliance with human rights due diligence requirements. Therefore, the legislation should include corporate grievance mechanisms to match remedies with victims’ expectations. Third, in terms of corporate grievance mechanisms, victims often lack resources to participate in them in a fair and respectful manner. This requires EU Member States to use their legislative power to lay down regulations that effectively enhance cooperation and coordination with independent monitoring bodies. To enhance the development as to access to remedy, the Whistleblowing Directive offers synergies through which to achieve greater accessibility, transparency, and victim empowerment. Corporate grievance mechanisms, facilitated by the Whistleblowing Directive, could take this a step further.

Risk-Based Due Diligence, Climate Change, Human Rights and the Just Transition

Climate change has been described as one of the greatest threats to people and the planet. Its impacts affect virtually the entire spectrum of internationally recognised human rights as well as the environment in and of itself. In relation to human rights, there is a growing consensus that companies should exercise human rights due diligence in order to identify and prevent their actual and potential adverse impacts. However, the relevance and implications of the concept of the due diligence have not yet fully been analysed in relation to climate change. In this paper, we explore the concept of risk-based due diligence, which builds on the concept of human rights due diligence but extends it to other areas such as the environment. Through a review of recent regulatory developments as well as case-law and other grievances, we analyse the three facets of risk-based due diligence for climate change—prevention, mitigation and remediation. We consider both the short term as well as the longer-term human rights and environmental implications of companies’ climate-related impacts, as well as those resulting from the company’s contributions to the green transition. We argue that risk-based due diligence offers an under-explored but important dual function: providing the operational means through which companies can identify and address the climate-related human rights and environmental impacts with which they may be involved, whilst also taking into consideration the human rights implications of their climate mitigation strategies and contributions to the just transition.

Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence in Germany and Norway: Stepping, or Striding, in the Same Direction?

Germany and Norway are the two latest states to adopt laws mandating human rights due diligence by companies. Germany adopted a Law on Supply Chain Due Diligence (German Law) on 10 June 2021. 1 The same day, the Norwegian parliament passed a Transparency Act (Norwegian Act) requiring human rights and decent work due diligence. 2 Like the French Loi de Vigilance and the Dutch Child Labour Due Diligence Law, these laws provide further momentum for mandatory measures to promote corporate respect for human rights, including future regulations in the European Union (EU). While the aims are similar, the German and Norwegian laws contain certain important differences when it comes to the substance and scope of the due diligence requirement. In this context, adherence to international standards remains the way forward to ensure compliance with divergent requirements in different jurisdictions.