Our reflections from the 13th UN Forum on Business and Human Rights

Last week, Moira Thompson Oliver and Rosie Duthie attended the 13th UN Forum on Business and Human Rights (the “Forum”).  The Forum brings together people from government, business, civil society, academia, and communities for discussions on business responsibilities and human rights. Building on last year’s forum (see here), they share their reflections on this year’s topics and priorities for business and human rights in 2025.

From voluntary principles to legal obligations: the CS3D under fire 

At last year’s Forum, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (“CS3D”)  was in draft form. Business and civil society stakeholders alike pinned their hopes on the final draft satisfying their concerns.  However, this year, there was a notable change in tone. The adopted CS3D – which will result in some of the obligations in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (“UNGPs”) becoming legal obligations for companies with a sufficient EU nexus – was the subject of scrutiny and criticism from all sides. This is perhaps evidence of the difficulties encountered when seeking broad agreement on legislation which solidifies voluntary principles into hard law: 

• Business representatives highlighted the challenges of compliance with value chain legislation: many noted that identifying risks of potential and actual adverse human rights impacts and engaging with a company’s full value chain was an almost impossible task. However, some sectors (such as agriculture) reported pockets of progress, citing good examples of longer-term worker engagement. 
• Regulatory fatigue and interoperability challenges: the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (“CSRD”) came under as much scrutiny as the CS3D this year, which is perhaps unsurprising since the two are designed to work together to some degree. Business representatives noted the challenges of implementation, including internal perceptions of a high regulatory burden and little interoperability between the regimes, despite that being the legislative intent.
• Widespread concern regarding checkbox compliance: delegates recounted that similar legislation (such as the German Supply Chain Act) had not led to meaningful corporate action.  Some anticipated that companies will choose to divest from high-risk human rights markets instead, rather than engaging with their business partners to improve the human rights impacts in their value chains. 
• The impact on SMEs: the CS3D includes guardrails to prevent obligations being pushed down the supply chain entirely, but there was scepticism as to whether these measures would work in practice. Some thought that companies with greater bargaining power might outsource their human rights risks by shifting obligations onto suppliers. Similarly, if policies and practices on pricing and purchasing are not designed with human rights impacts in mind, it might pressurise suppliers into taking shortcuts with potential adverse consequences. 
• Protection of rightsholders: continuing a theme from last year, delegates expressed the need to involve stakeholders in designing mechanisms to prevent and address human rights harms. There were more examples this year of successful multi-stakeholder initiatives.  

Beyond the EU – binding obligations 

Discussion on the draft treaty to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises in respect of human rights (the “Treaty”) continued at this year’s Forum. There were calls for the current draft to be aligned with the UNGPs so as to provide a universal baseline and mitigate concerns about regulatory fatigue and interoperability of the Treaty with existing due diligence legislation. 

Just transition and investment 

In the wake of COP29, many reiterated the importance of ensuring a just transition, with particular consideration for vulnerable people and communities who may not benefit from projects, and where local constraints may limit their access to energy and related infrastructure.

Discussions repeatedly highlighted that human rights impacts are often most acute at the intersections of human rights and other pressing global issues. Climate change was the most cited example.  Workers in supply chains may be forced to migrate due to climate change, then fall through the gaps of climate policy and employment protections in their country of arrival. Child labour might proliferate in the communities those workers have left behind. If energy projects are abandoned to align with climate targets, there may be fewer opportunities for local communities, especially if they have been displaced from their land. 

Representatives of indigenous peoples stated that it should not be assumed that they are against transition projects, but they do need to participate at every stage. That means companies should obtain their free, prior and informed consent, understand their priorities, share the benefits of projects and develop channels to raise concerns. This should continue from the initial scoping of an investment or project, throughout its lifetime to any disinvestment.

However, investors at the Forum highlighted that transition projects can be high risk, often in countries with insufficient infrastructure to deliver the project and its benefits. Some called for “investable opportunities in a derisked environment”, such as through blended finance investment opportunities, supported by development organisations and governments. Responsible stewardship and the application of human rights obligations to investors was a recurring theme, but investors highlighted their wider fiduciary obligations and that a balance must be struck. 

Practical tips

Despite the many challenges discussed, this year there were more examples of practical steps and good practice from which all stakeholders can learn. This is what we heard:

1. Governments should strive for clear, consistent regulation and promptly issue guidance to support private sector action to improve human rights and environmental impacts in line with their fiduciary obligations (to shareholders and investors). 
2. International organisations and NGOs can plug the guidance gap while regulation and government guidance are pending.  An example of this is B-Tech’s collaboration with UNICEF, outlining a child rights-based approach to implementing the UNGPs in the digital environment (reflecting the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child).  
3. Companies should build on what they have learnt from implementing the UNGPs when complying with legislation; the UNGPs provide a solid basis for navigating regulatory divergence. 
4. Share learning and case studies.  Businesses can learn from each other, if they are willing to be more transparent about what has worked and what hasn’t (in a manner that is compliant with competition law), even in some of the most challenging operating environments. 
5. If necessary, start small.  Large-scale change can require governance restructuring, external advice, new policies and processes, and more.  However, even small, resource-limited teams can take early steps. If a third-party human rights impact assessment is beyond reach, a company can review its supplier contracts, pricing policies and annual purchasing practices, to take preventative steps to reduce the risk of adverse impacts.
6. New sustainable disclosure regimes will generate data from which other companies can learn and adapt for greater insight across market sectors, high-risk activities and geographies. Companies which are not subject to such regimes can use this data to identify likely risk areas. 

Added together, these steps reflect the Forum’s theme of ‘realising the smart mix of measures to protect human rights in the context of business activities’; that regulation is necessary but not currently sufficient, and that more engagement and shared learning will drive change.