Corporations and international solidarity

Corporate solidarity can be founded on the principle that corporations are institutions that should be ordered according to the recognition of their interdependence with the society of persons that participate in the creation or purchase of corporate goods and services, and with the environment.¹ As expressed in one study, “In working toward the hypergoal of sustainable peace, corporations must attend to two tiers: an immediate, short-term orientation to foster solidarity with local populations in which the corporation works, and a longer-term orientation to abide by the specific norms that have been linked to sustainable peace.”² In another study, the tension is highlighted between corporations that create positive solidarity value through the production of sustainable goods and services, fair employment and the payment of taxes, and others that engage in counter-solidarity practices, such as the unsustainable extraction of natural resources, exploitive labour practices, the use of tax havens and the enabling of international crimes in war economies.³

1. See G. Russello, “Catholic Social Thought and the Large Multinational Corporation”, in Journal of Catholic Legal Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1 (2007). ↩
2. See T. Dunfee and T. Fort, “Corporate Hypergoals, Sustainable Peace, and the Adapted Firm”, in Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 36, Iss. 2 (2021). ↩
3. Input from Mark B. Taylor. See also www.unilever.com/sustainability/responsible-business/responsible-taxpayer/. ↩

The promotion of human rights-based corporate solidarity policies that pursue the fair distribution of wealth, non-discrimination, sustainable peace and environmental protection is contingent on functioning democratic institutions. One study emphasized the recognition of responsibility as the basis of solidarity, and rethinking the question of responsibility as “response-ability”, i.e. openness to the suffering of the other. International solidarity may be considered a solution for filling “the multiple black holes of social exclusion throughout the planet”.⁴

4. See U. Baxi, “Some Newly Emergent Geographies of Injustice: Boundaries and Borders in International Law”, in Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Vol. 23: Iss. 1, Art. 2 (2016), citing J. Derrida, The Gift of Death and Literature in Secret (University of Chicago Press. 2008), and M. Castells, End of Millennium (1998). ↩

Article 2, paragraph 1, of the revised draft declaration on the right to international solidarity defines preventive solidarity as “characterized by actions to safeguard and ensure the fulfilment of all human rights, through collective or individual efforts by individuals, peoples, civil society, the private sector, States and international organizations to fully respect and comply with their commitments under international law”.⁵

5. A/HRC/53/32, annex. ↩

There is a marked recession of democracy in many regions of the world, as well as a weakening of State welfare programmes designed to provide housing, healthcare and education to lower-income sectors of society.⁶ In some cases, this is due to the impact of repaying sovereign debt and corruption in tax and revenue collection, while in other cases it is on account of the reprioritization of funding for defence. There is also a trend towards the privatization of State services.⁷ The World Social Report 2025 notes that two thirds of the world’s population lives in countries where income inequality is increasing, and calls for a new policy consensus based on equity, economic security for all and solidarity.⁸

6. See https://freedomhouse.org/issues/democracies-decline. ↩
7. See P. DeMarzo et al, “Sovereign debt ratchets and welfare destruction”, in Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 131, No. 10 (2023); P. Self, Public expenditure and welfare, (Routledge, 2022); M. Radić et al, “Privatization: Implications of a shift from state to private ownership”, in Journal of Management, Vol. 47, Iss. 6 (2021). ↩
8. See https://desapublications.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/2025-04/250422%20BLS25022%20UDS%20UN%20World%20Social%20Report%20WEB.pdf. ↩

This type of phenomenon creates pressure on corporations that may receive solidarity demands by persons marginalized by the State, to respond to the aim of greater social inclusion.⁹ The dysfunction of the State results in a protection gap in which there is a need for greater exchange of information and discussion of potential solutions between the State, civil society and the corporate sector. Corporations are particularly challenged when identifying human rights risks, given the complex formal and informal arrangements with suppliers, subcontractors, distributors, customers and end users. Corporations may seek to minimize damage to their reputation, but may also seek to uphold societal trust and minimize disruption to activities due to litigation or boycotts on account of violations, such as the use of child labour, damage to the environment or breach of data privacy laws.

9. See www.bsr.org/en/focus/inclusive-business. ↩

In many societies, civil society groups have been filling the solidarity gap when neither the State nor the corporation effectively responds to solidarity demands.¹⁰ One key role played by civil society is in the filing of strategic litigation cases advocating for persons who may have an indirect status in the supply chain, or where the failure of a subsidiary causes harm requiring the accountability of the parent company, such as the 2021 case involving the accountability of the company Royal Dutch Shell for an oil spill in Nigeria.¹¹ Increasingly, there is a concern that civil society groups that pursue solidarity actions against corporations are being targeted with strategic lawsuits against public participation to silence them, as well as “red-tagging”, surveillance and criminalization.¹²

10. Civil society can partner with corporations to evaluate risks. See www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/01d712ab61f340bb9321b40ceeb80a36/endelig-rapport-utredning-apenhetsloven-engelsk-versjon.pdf. ↩
11. See https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2021:1825. ↩
12. See www.the-case.eu. ↩

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct recognizes that stakeholders can also be rights holders, such as Indigenous Peoples.¹³ They refer to “stakeholders” as those who have interests that could be affected by the activities of a business enterprise, who would be considered “rights holders” when the interest concerns human rights. Stakeholders/rights holders will differ depending of the type of business enterprise, and could include: communities at the local, regional or national levels; workers and employees, including under informal arrangements within supply chains and trade unions; consumers or end-users of products; human rights defenders; non-governmental organizations (NGOs); and national human rights institutions. In the present report, the focus is on rights holders, including those advocating on behalf of Indigenous Peoples, workers, etc., such as trade unions.

13. See https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/OECD-Due-Diligence-Guidance-for-Responsible-Business-Conduct.pdf, page 50. ↩

It is important to note that corporations vary in terms of the rights holders they engage with, and their scope, according to sector and size. Corporate sectors include apparel and footwear, automotive, banking and insurance, defence and aerospace, extractives, healthcare and pharmaceuticals, renewable energy, transportation, food and beverages, information and communications technology, media, etc. For example, an international mining company may engage with several groups of Indigenous Peoples in particular regions, concerned with free, prior informed consent for use of the land, while a global food company sourcing agricultural produce will engage with thousands of farmers around the world who have water management concerns, while middle and small companies may engage with smaller groups of rights holders, such as women workers seeking maternity leave rights. In some countries, powerful landowners may form alliances with government officials to block the adoption of labour legislation, thereby complicating the identification of forced labour practices.¹⁴

14. See M. Eriksson et al, “From blueberry cakes to labor strikes: Negotiating ‘legitimate labor’ and ‘ethical food’ in supply chains”, in Geoforum, Vol. 105 (2019). ↩

The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights¹⁵ establish the following foundational principles: (a) principle 11 states that business enterprises should respect human rights; this means that they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved; (b) principle 12 states that the responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights refers to internationally recognized human rights – understood, at a minimum, as those expressed in the International Bill of Human Rights and the principles concerning fundamental rights set out in the International Labour Organization (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work; and (c) principle 13 states that the responsibility to respect human rights requires that business enterprises: (i) avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur; and (ii) seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts.

15. A/HRC/17/31, annex. ↩

With respect to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the Guiding Principles Reporting Framework¹⁶ includes a database that makes it possible to see cases involving solidarity demands relating to human rights issues such as access to water; child labour; community rights; consumer rights; discrimination and harassment; environmental rights, such as air quality; forced labour; freedom of association and collective bargaining; health and safety; labour rights; land rights; migrant labour; privacy, such as sharing data about Internet use with Governments; the right to adequate housing; the right to health; the right to water and sanitation; security and human rights; temporary work; wages; women’s rights; and working hours.

16. See https://www.ungpreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/UNGPReportingFramework_withguidance2017.pdf. ↩

It should be noted that some sectors cooperate to identify and address risks, including artisanal and small-scale mining, smallholder farmers and labour contractors. The Global Business Initiative provides guidance for intersectoral best practices.¹⁷

17. See https://gbihr.org/images/docs/GBI_-_Guidance_Briefing_Identifiying__Addressing_ Risks__Impacts_June_25.pdf. ↩

A key challenge is for corporations to inform rights holders openly about the rights that may be at risk due to operations, and to create channels for rights holders to provide input to design solidarity strategies to prevent or mitigate violations. Rights holders may claim that human rights or environmental audit procedures are invisible to them or not openly shared with them. The rights holders may not have disclosure about the corporate management of human rights, or the role of the corporate leadership and corporate board. A corporation can appear to be a “black box”, and rights holders may not know with whom who they can communicate. There is a need for improved, creative communication strategies that improve the participation of rights holders in the design of effective remedies. For example, one oil company chose to hold a round-table meeting with an Indigenous community to discuss the risk of environmental damage due to operations, and the community helped to design biodiversity protection projects in which they themselves could take part.

The international labour movement is one of the most historic solidarity movements.¹⁸ The International Trade Union Confederation is the embodiment of international solidarity, with a global rights index that analyses workers’ access to justice, enjoyment of freedoms of expression and assembly, and right to collective bargaining.¹⁹ It reports a devasting global assault on workers’ solidarity rights in 2025. Workers around the world experienced reduced access to justice in 72 per cent of countries, the right to strike was violated in 87 per cent of countries, the right to legally register a union was impeded in 74 per cent of countries, the right to collective bargaining was violated in 80 per cent of countries, and freedom of expression and peaceful assembly were violated in 45 per cent of countries.²⁰

18. See J. Atleson, “The Voyage of the Neptune Jade: The Perils and Promises of Transnational Labor Solidarity”, in Buffalo Law Review, No. 52 (2004). ↩
19. See www.ituc-csi.org/global-rights-index. ↩
20. See www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/en__global_right_index_2025__final_web.pdf? 42561/2dadb6a0c1eacc71d32d3f2f6ef8702cb163d152bd2dc8e5cc9ae3e96e031476. ↩

ILO standards are examples of solidarity initiatives between Governments, employers and workers, and provide a normative framework for the identification of solidarity demands. Solidarity for migrant workers is especially fragile, in particular when linked to other intersectional identity categories, such as gender, which is particularly salient in the transnational care economy.²¹ One organization reported that “migrant workers in global supply chains face systematic abuse and exploitation, including discriminatory laws, vulnerability to exploitation due to immigration status, isolation, exclusion from services, and woefully inadequate enforcement of labour protections”.²² It is of concern that the ILO Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1975 (No. 143) has only been ratified by 30 States, and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (1990) has only 60 States Parties.

21. See A. Stewart, Gender, law and justice in a global market (Cambridge University Press, 2011). ↩
22. See https://oi-files-d8-prod.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2024-01/Davos%202024%20Report-%20English.pdf. ↩

For maritime seafarers, there is a system of inspection and certification pursuant to the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 to ensure freedom of association, collective bargaining, non-discrimination and protection from forced labour.²³ The Convention is the offspring of solidarity between dockworkers and seafarers, after the former had refused to unload goods from ships that had maltreated their seafarers. One remaining solidarity challenge is the protection of seafarers on fishing vessels, many of whom are migrant workers; hence the ratification of the ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No. 188) is urgent, and the protection of migrant fishers is particularly salient.²⁴ As of 2025, only 24 countries had ratified that Convention.²⁵ There is a concern that fishing seafarers may not report violations because of fear of reprisals, intimidation or a lack of trust in reporting systems. Fishing and transport corporations should ensure that they conduct regular risk assessments and create trustworthy mechanisms for reporting.

23. See www.itfseafarers.org/en/resources/maritime-labour-convention; see also https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:R199; www.ilo.org/resource/other/guidelines-flag-state-inspection-working-and-living-conditions-board; and www.itfglobal.org/sites/default/files/node/resources/files/ITF-HRDD_Guidance.pdf. ↩
24. See P. Ridings, “Labour standards on fishing vessels: a problem in search of a home?” in Melbourne Journal of International Law, No. 22 (2021); M. Nurand M. Susanto, “Certification of fisheries human rights and its impact to protecting the rights of fishing vessel crew”, in Legality, No. 29 (2021). ↩
25. See https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:11300:0::NO:11300:P11300_ INSTRUMENT_ID:312333:NO. ↩

In 2024, the International Labour Conference adopted its resolution ILC.112/Resolution V, concerning decent work and the care economy. ILO pursues the “5R Framework for Decent Care Work” (recognition, reduction and redistribution of unpaid care and reward and representation of care workers).²⁶

26. See www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/A-toolkit-on-paid-and-unpaid-care-work-en.pdf. ↩

ILO member States are required to submit reports to ILO on the measures taken to give effect to conventions. Labour associations can file reports to the governing body of ILO regarding the non-compliance of a State, pursuant to which the State will be asked to respond.²⁷ For example, in 2024, nine global trade unions filed a complaint against Israel for failing to pay the wages of 200,000 Palestinian workers in Gaza and the West Bank after the events of 7 October 2023.²⁸ Similarly, Members can submit complaints of non-compliance with ILO instruments, pursuant to which a communication will be sent to the Government concerned.²⁹ In 2025, trade unions filed a complaint against Saudi Arabia alleging forced labour, wage theft, physical and sexual abuse, and systemic racism with regard to African migrant workers.³⁰

27. See ILO Constitution, arts. 22 and 24. ↩
28. See www.ituc-csi.org/Palestine-Global-unions-file-ILO-complaint. ↩
29. See ILO Constitution, art. 26 ↩
30. See www.ituc-csi.org/Trade-unions-take-Saudi-Arabia-to-UN-labour-body; and www.ilo.org/resource/record-proceedings/ilc/113/plenary-sitting-report-committee-application-standards. ↩

United Nations treaty bodies have increasingly engaged in addressing the need to protect the rights of workers to engage in solidarity actions. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is concerned about reprisals against workers – especially those working in transnational corporations operating in the oil and gas sectors – who abstain from engaging in trade union activities out of fear of reprisals.³¹ The Committee has called upon States to guarantee remedies for non-citizens affected by domiciled companies, and the need to conduct human rights impact assessments.³²

31. See E/C.12/AZE/CO/4, para. 30; E/C.12/CAN/CO/6, paras. 15–16; and E/C.12/NOR/CO/5. ↩
32. See E/C.12/DEU/CO/6, para. 10; CCPR/C/DEU/CO/7, paras. 6–7; and CCPR/C/CAN/CO/6, para. 6. ↩

Principle 6 of the United Nations Global Compact³³ 33 establishes a clear non-discrimination standard, namely, “the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation”. Similarly, the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy establishes a framework to ensure non-discrimination is respected within corporations.³⁴ Many corporations have programmes aimed at strengthening diversity.³⁵ 35 One study describes the negative 25 See https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:11300:0::NO:11300:P11300_ INSTRUMENT_ID:312333:NO. 26 See www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/A-toolkit-on-paid-and-unpaid-care-worken.pdf. 27 See ILO Constitution, arts. 22 and 24. 28 See www.ituc-csi.org/Palestine-Global-unions-file-ILO-complaint. 29 See ILO Constitution, art. 26 30 See www.ituc-csi.org/Trade-unions-take-Saudi-Arabia-to-UN-labour-body; and www.ilo.org/resource/record-proceedings/ilc/113/plenary-sitting-report-committee-applicationstandards. 31 See E/C.12/AZE/CO/4, para. 30; E/C.12/CAN/CO/6, paras. 15–16; and E/C.12/NOR/CO/5. 32 See E/C.12/DEU/CO/6, para. 10; CCPR/C/DEU/CO/7, paras. 6–7; and CCPR/C/CAN/CO/6, para. 6. 33 https://unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles. 34 See www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_emp/@emp_ent/@multi/ documents/publication/wcms_094386.pdf, para. 30. 35 See www.3ds.com/about/corporate-responsibility/sustainability-commitment/esgmanagement/social; and www.radiusrecycling.com/assets/documents/radius-recycling-2024sustainability-report.pdf, p. 49. 8/22 interplay of Asian-Latino distrust within the corporate management of worker’s rights, which weakens solidarity.³⁶

33. https://unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles. ↩
34. See www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_emp/@emp_ent/@multi/ documents/publication/wcms_094386.pdf, para. 30. ↩
35. See www.3ds.com/about/corporate-responsibility/sustainability-commitment/esg-management/social; and www.radiusrecycling.com/assets/documents/radius-recycling-2024-sustainability-report.pdf, p. 49. ↩
36. See Julie A. Su, “The Progressive Critique of the Current Socio-legal Landscape: Corporations and Economic Justice”, in The Seattle Journal for Social Justice, Vol. 4, Iss. 1 (Nov. 2005). ↩

A recent historical example of corporate solidarity leadership in the United States of America addressed racial discrimination after the murder of George Floyd, and promoted the adoption of diversity, equity and inclusion policies within many corporations.³⁷ However, this trend was followed by political backlash that led to the dismantling of diversity programmes both in private and in public institutions.³⁸ Nonetheless, some corporate shareholders voted to reject anti-diversity, equity and inclusion proposals, due to concern regarding the potential damage to the company’s reputation, its diminished ability to recruit or retain talent, its loss of customers, clients or market share, and the increased risk of discrimination litigation.³⁹

37. See G.G. Fletcher and T. Timothy Jr., “Corporate Racial Responsibility”, in Columbia Law Review, Vol. 124 (2024); and L. Fairfax, “Racial Rhetoric or Reality? Cautious Optimism on the Link Between Corporate #BLM Speech and Behavior”, in Columbus Business Law Review, No. 118 (2022). ↩
38. See R. Newman, “Corporate Captains of the Woke Revolution: The Need to Limit Corporate Political Activism”, in Texas Review of Law and Politics, No. 663 (2023). ↩
39. See https://assets.catalyst.org/1f413634-3b8d-4b6f-bf28-b2f800fb016e/Catalyst-Meltzer-Center-Risk-of-Retreat_REPORT_FINAL_Original%20file.pdf. ↩

The European Union directive on corporate sustainability due diligence⁴⁰ recognizes the different intersectoral categories of identity that merit protection, including gender, age, race, ethnicity, class, caste, education, migration status, disability, as well as social and economic class. Samsung interviews vulnerable persons, taking into account such intersectional identities, to design improvement measures for them.⁴¹ In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the International Transport Workers Federation described how railway unions and disability activists pursued solidarity actions to prevent the closure of ticket offices.⁴² There is an increased recognition that intersectional solidarity strategies can be effective, noting the success of living wage solidarity movements in uniting minorities, migrants and women.⁴³

40. See https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/doing-business-eu/sustainability-due-diligence-responsible-business/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence_en. ↩
41. See www.samsungsdi.com/upload/download/sustainable-management/Samsung_SDI_Sustainability_Report_2025_EN.pdf, p. 71. ↩
42. See www.itfglobal.org/en/news/closing-ticket-offices-isnt-modernisation-its-attack-public-transport. ↩
43. Input from the Institute for New Frontiers (May 2025). ↩

The Institute for New Frontiers underscores that domestic workers have been able to engage in intersectional transnational solidarity networks spanning class, gender, race and migration status to improve protection. However, it warns that there is a risk that supporting intersectional strategies when convenient but failing to address deeper structural issues, such as pay inequity or workplace harassment, undermines true solidarity. Nevertheless, it is hopeful for the potential positive role of corporations, stating that:
Corporate cooperation is not just helpful, it is often decisive. Because corporations control resources, set workplace culture and influence public discourse, their engagement can make or break intersectional solidarity efforts. When corporations resist, progress is slow and fragmented. When they engage authentically, they can amplify worker-led movements, set industry standards and drive broader social change. Ultimately, the path to intersectional worker solidarity requires not just worker activism, but also corporate commitment to justice and equity.⁴⁴

44. Ibid., noting www.wiego.org/informal-economy/occupational-groups/domestic-workers. ↩

One study describes corporate solidarity with migrant workers who risk deportation, explaining that this type of action was often connected to solidarity networks involving public and private universities and churches. In particular, the study notes the opposition from technology companies, including Google, Apple, Facebook, Uber and Lyft, which “opposed the first travel ban almost immediately and were joined by more than 150 companies that issued public statements, social media pressure and eventually an amicus brief in the lawsuit proceeding against the travel bans”. The study explains that technology companies also “facilitate the use of texting and social media to warn immigrants of imminent raids, and software apps to circumvent cell phone surveillance at borders”.⁴⁵

45. See M.H. Chen, “Sanctuary Networks and Integrative Enforcement”, in Washington and Lee Law Review, No. 1361 (2018). See also A/HRC/37/51/Add.3, paras. 96–101. ↩

Another study notes the salient impact of technology workers in promoting corporate solidarity perspectives:⁴⁶
It is not surprising that tech employees are the ones leading by activism. They are turning their attention to their employers – large corporations and the managers who manage them. They are calling on their employers to take corporate social responsibility into account. Perhaps they will be able to do what policymakers, academics, and leading lawyers were not able to do, and that is to change our current corporate law to mirror social movements, to take stakeholder interests into account, to resist short-termism, and to achieve long-term value by forcing their employers to incorporate in their charters a deep obligation to act for the benefit of society at large … Can the revolt by tech employees lead to a shift in the prevalent corporate governance theory from current shareholder-centric corporate governance to collaborative (stakeholder-centric) corporate governance model?

46. See A. Alon-Beck, “The Times They Are A-Changin’: When Tech Employees Revolt!”, in Maryland Law Review, Vol. 80, Iss. 1 (2020). ↩

A further study advocates for a decolonial conceptualization of solidarity in global health that would encourage “equitable sharing of the costs, access and benefits of research and development in ways that enable innovators to get rewarded according to the social benefit and impacts achieved through their innovation, made available at a non-profit price in resource-poor settings”.⁴⁷

47. See A.K. Fayemi et al, “Solidarity and its decoloniality in global health ethics”, in International Journal for Equity in Health, No. 24 (2025); C. Staunton and J. de Vries, “The governance of genomic biobank research in Africa: reframing the regulatory tilt”, in Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Vol. 7, Iss. 1 (2020). ↩

It is notable that gender discrimination is not usually included in human rights impact assessments, hence it is important to remedy this exclusion. OECD recommends that a gender perspective be included in due diligence legislation and strategies for response and prevention.⁴⁸ There is recognition that creating the fiduciary duty to diversify a corporate board can be effective.⁴⁹ OECD seeks to improve women’s participation in non-traditional sectors, such as mining, thereby promoting inclusive programmes. There is a growing engagement of civil society groups pursuing solidarity actions that demand the accountability of corporations in terms of human rights and environmental violations, including a recognition of the particular impact that operations and supply chains have on women.⁵⁰ In many cases, current legal and policy frameworks that apply to the extractive sector and the energy transition domain do not provide effective access to justice and remedy and do not adequately address the situation of marginalized groups, for example, by failing to apply a gender lens to remedy frameworks. The Feminists for a Binding Treaty coalition calls for the adoption of a binding treaty to ensure corporate accountability.⁵¹ One positive example is in Colombia, where the Elite Group of Gender Equity, part of the Ministry of Labour, conducts training, as well as preventive and responsive investigations and visits to employers in different sectors to address gender discrimination.

48. See https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/integrating-a-gender-perspective-into-supply-chain-due-diligence.htm. ↩
49. See A. Alon-Beck et al, “No More Old Boys’ Club: Institutional Investors’ Fiduciary Duty to Advance Board Gender Diversify”, in Davis Law Review, Vol. 55 (2021); and CEDAW/C/ESP/CO/7-8, para. 28. ↩
50. See https://corporateaccountability.org. See also https://actionaid.org/sites/default/files/ publications/We%20Mean%20Business%20-%20Protecting%20Womens%20Rights%20in%20 Global%20Supply%20Chains_ActionAid_March%202020.pdf. ↩
51. See www.business-humanrights.org/en/blog/people-over-profit-the-next-steps-needed-to-achieve-a-meaningful-binding-treaty-on-business-and-human-rights/. ↩

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women also calls for remedies for women and human rights impact assessments addressing the gender impact of corporate activities abroad, in particular regarding extractive industries, the illicit trade in firearms and small arms, and social media companies.⁵²

52. See CEDAW/C/LUX/CO/8, para. 17; CEDAW/C/COD/EP/CO/1, para. 49; CEDAW/C/LAO/CO/10, para. 27; CEDAW/C/NIC/CO/7-10, para. 43; CEDAW/C/DEU/CO/9, para. 20; CEDAW/C/ISL/CO/9, para. 40; CEDAW/C/PAN/CO/8, para. 44; CEDAW/C/AUS/CO/8, para. 30; CEDAW/C/DEU/CO/7-8, paras. 15–16 and 27; CEDAW/C/CAN/CO/8-9, paras. 18–19; CEDAW/C/CHE/CO/4-5, paras. 16–17; CEDAW/C/CHE/CO/4-5, para. 41; and CEDAW/C/PER/CO/7-8, para. 37. See also A/HRC/32/44/Add.2 and A/HRC/51/26/Add.1, para. 47. ↩

The Committee on the Rights of the Child has issued recommendations calling attention to children’s rights within the corporate sectors, including the extractive industries.⁵³ Child labour practices are subject to due diligence review by certification institutions that examine risk assessment, mitigation, remediation and monitoring.⁵⁴ One study calls for the formalization of artisanal mining in order to protect human rights, including children.⁵⁵

53. See CRC/C/CPV/CO/2, para. 21; CRC/C/BHR/CO/4-6, para. 14; CRC/C/ARG/CO/5-6, para. 13; and CRC/C/BLR/CO/5-6, para. 13. ↩
54. See www.rainforest-alliance.org/resource-item/child-labor-guide-an-introduction/; and ILO Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182). ↩
55. See www.forbes.com/sites/michaelposner/2023/02/09/as-demand-soars-for-cobalt-used-in-electric-car-batteries-heres-what-companies-need-to-do-in-the-democratic-republic-of-congo/?sh=170a530f6471. ↩

One study asserts that international solidarity is an inextricable element of sustainability, as well as of sustainable development.⁵⁶ Likewise, it may be argued that social sustainability policies connect to the aim of intergenerational solidarity. 49 See A. Alon-Beck et al, “No More Old Boys’ Club: Institutional Investors’ Fiduciary Duty to Advance Board Gender Diversify”, in Davis Law Review, Vol. 55 (2021); and CEDAW/C/ESP/CO/7-8, para. 28. 50 See https://corporateaccountability.org. See also https://actionaid.org/sites/default/files/ publications/We%20Mean%20Business%20-%20Protecting%20Womens%20Rights%20in%20 Global%20Supply%20Chains_ActionAid_March%202020.pdf. 51 See www.business-humanrights.org/en/blog/people-over-profit-the-next-steps-needed-toachieve-a-meaningful-binding-treaty-on-business-and-human-rights/. 52 See CEDAW/C/LUX/CO/8, para. 17; CEDAW/C/COD/EP/CO/1, para. 49; CEDAW/C/LAO/CO/10, para. 27; CEDAW/C/NIC/CO/7-10, para. 43; CEDAW/C/DEU/CO/9, para. 20; CEDAW/C/ISL/CO/9, para. 40; CEDAW/C/PAN/CO/8, para. 44; CEDAW/C/AUS/CO/8, para. 30; CEDAW/C/DEU/CO/7-8, paras. 15–16 and 27; CEDAW/C/CAN/CO/8-9, paras. 18–19; CEDAW/C/CHE/CO/4-5, paras. 16–17; CEDAW/C/CHE/CO/4-5, para. 41; and CEDAW/C/PER/CO/7-8, para. 37. See also A/HRC/32/44/Add.2 and A/HRC/51/26/Add.1, para. 47. 53 See CRC/C/CPV/CO/2, para. 21; CRC/C/BHR/CO/4-6, para. 14; CRC/C/ARG/CO/5-6, para. 13; and CRC/C/BLR/CO/5-6, para. 13. 54 See www.rainforest-alliance.org/resource-item/child-labor-guide-an-introduction/; and ILO Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182). 55 See www.forbes.com/sites/michaelposner/2023/02/09/as-demand-soars-for-cobalt-used-inelectric-car-batteries-heres-what-companies-need-to-do-in-the-democratic-republic-ofcongo/?sh=170a530f6471. 56 See B. Sjåfjell, “Solidarity, Sustainability and the Role of Business”, in C.M. Bailliet, Research Handbook on International Solidarity and the Law (Edward Elgar 2024), pp. 203–222. Article 9, paragraph 1 (d), of the revised draft declaration recognizes that relationship, stating that “States act in compliance with their duty through efforts to realize international solidarity as a human right that is indivisible from, interrelated to and interdependent on all other human rights, and is normatively anchored in a system of rights and corresponding obligations established by international law, relating to … creating a global enabling environment for sustainable development that is centred on individuals and peoples and is grounded in intergenerational justice and equity. This includes the increased use of sustainable agriculture and fishing, as well as the transition to renewable energy”.

56. See B. Sjåfjell, “Solidarity, Sustainability and the Role of Business”, in C.M. Bailliet, Research Handbook on International Solidarity and the Law (Edward Elgar 2024), pp. 203–222. ↩

The study underscores the urgency to design policies on intersectional and interspecies solidarity within the larger framework of respect for planetary boundaries. Three principles of the Global Compact outline elements of corporate solidarity with the environment, namely: (a) businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges (principle 7); (b) undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility (principle 8); and (c) encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies (principle 9).

Similarly, the European Union directive on corporate sustainable due diligence recognizes that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment, including ecosystems, are interlinked and interdependent, requiring environmental due diligence that will address the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. The above-mentioned OECD Guidance provides a framework for corporate environmental solidarity. Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, and article 3, paragraph 5, of the revised draft declaration contain standards recognizing the aims of international actors, including corporations, to take action on climate change, including compensating for loss and damage. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights suggests measuring differentiated responsibility according to the corporation’s historic and current production of carbon emissions.⁵⁷

57. See https://jurisprudencia.corteidh.or.cr/es/vid/1084981967/search. ↩

The European Union directive on corporate sustainability reporting requires large companies to provide regular reports on the social and environmental risks they face, and on how their activities affect people and the environment. The issue of double materiality has been addresses in terms of its relation to accountability for violations, as it is only in relation to human rights that the standard of severity takes precedence over the likelihood of the impact in determining materiality thresholds. In that regard, environmental impacts need to be connected to human rights in order to be successful, hence the calls for reform.

It has been noted that business management research might benefit from including solidarity approaches to address values relating to the environment and Indigenous Peoples. Environmental defenders often participate in solidarity actions with Indigenous Peoples to address corporate harm.⁵⁸ One study confirms the important of corporate solidarity with Indigenous Peoples and specifically articulates the need for the regulation of corporations and accountability for the exploitation, oppression, corruption and destruction of the environment.⁵⁹ Indigenous Peoples have reported forced displacement, violence, restricted access to water and limited access to healthcare in regions where extractive industries and commodity sourcing operate.⁶⁰ They express concern that certification and audit schemes are not conducted independently and therefore carry a risk of “greenwashing”, hence they call for a global solidarity approach to protect Indigenous rights and the environment.⁶¹ This should also affirm cultural pluralism, collective identity and differentiated rights.⁶² The Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance states that Indigenous representatives on corporate boards should have veto power. The company Ørsted has adopted a community feedback mechanism throughout project lifetimes.⁶³

58. See J. Dehm, “Environmental Justice Challenges to International Economic Ordering”, in American Journal of International Law, Vol. 116 (2022). ↩
59. See A/HRC/33/42/Add.1, para. 104. ↩
60. See https://rightenergypartnership.org/indigenous-peoples-demand-reform-of-global-certification-systems/. ↩
61. See www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/indigenous-peoples-call-for-participation-shared-prosperity-in-clean-energy-transition/. ↩
62. Input from Indigenous Peoples Major Group. ↩
63. See https://cdn.orsted.com/-/media/www/docs/corp/com/sustainability/guidelines-on-indigenous-peoples-and-fpic_june24_final-version.pdf. ↩

The Danish Institute for Human Rights has a checklist for companies engaging with Indigenous Peoples, which includes a screening analysis, impact assessment, consultation, and implementation and monitoring mechanisms.⁶⁴ Sims Limited invests in Indigenous-owned businesses and has a reconciliation plan.⁶⁵ OECD cites two examples of Indigenous Peoples partnering with companies to meet environmental standards.⁶⁶ The Three Fires Group, a company that represents several First Nations in Ontario, Canada, and supplies the Electra Battery Materials Corporation with “black mass” – the residual compound from shredding expired lithium batteries – to reduce the amount of lithium needing to be mined. At a mine in Queensland, Australia, Rio Tinto has been working with Wik-Waya landowners in developing a group to look after their land and work on rehabilitation strategies across the full mine life cycle.

64. See www.humanrights.dk/publications/respecting-rights-indigenous-peoples-due-diligence-checklist-companies. ↩
65. See www.simsltd.com/sustainability/our-communities/. ↩
66. See https://oecdcogito.blog/2023/10/19/unlocking-the-potential-of-indigenous-knowledge-in-mining-regions-circular-economy/. ↩

The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity aims to protect the traditional knowledge held by Indigenous Peoples. It is essential that States ensure that pharmaceutical companies abide by its standards in solidarity with Indigenous Peoples to avoid exploitation, through informed consent. Moreover, as the implementation of the Protocol through national contact points appears weak, corporations should create more direct channels to design remedies with the communities involved.

Some States have institutions that can address corporate responsibility for human rights violations, such as the public defender’s office, the collective amparo mechanism in Argentina, the Public Ministry in Guatemala, or the Authorized Person of the Oliy Majlis for Human Rights (Ombudsperson) in Uzbekistan.⁶⁷ 67 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has recognized that States should prevent human rights violations by companies – including transnational companies with supply chains within their territories – by enacting due diligence laws that address human rights and environmental norms.⁶⁸ It held that corporations should ensure that their actions do not cause or contribute to human rights abuses, and should adopt 60 See https://rightenergypartnership.org/indigenous-peoples-demand-reform-of-globalcertification-systems/. 61 See www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/indigenous-peoples-call-for-participationshared-prosperity-in-clean-energy-transition/. 62 Input from Indigenous Peoples Major Group. 63 See https://cdn.orsted.com/-/media/www/docs/corp/com/sustainability/guidelines-onindigenous-peoples-and-fpic_june24_final-version.pdf. 64 See www.humanrights.dk/publications/respecting-rights-indigenous-peoples-due-diligencechecklist-companies. 65 See www.simsltd.com/sustainability/our-communities/. 66 See https://oecdcogito.blog/2023/10/19/unlocking-the-potential-of-indigenous-knowledge-inmining-regions-circular-economy/. 67 See Constitution of Argentina, art. 43. Input from Guatemala; and input from Uzbekistan. 68 See www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_432_ing.pdf. preventive measures to protect the human rights of their workers and the environment. The Court held that companies must carry out continuous human rights risk assessments, mitigate risks and provide remedies. The European Committee of Social Rights receives collective complaints and State reports that tackle solidarity issues, including collective bargaining and other labour issues.⁶⁹

67. See Constitution of Argentina, art. 43. Input from Guatemala; and input from Uzbekistan. ↩
68. See www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_432_ing.pdf. ↩
69. See www.coe.int/en/web/european-social-charter/collective-complaints-procedure. ↩

India has a business responsibility and sustainability reporting framework that requires the top 1,000 listed companies to disclose whether grievance mechanisms exist for environmental, social or governance-related issues. The National Human Rights Commission accepts petitions concerning business-related human rights violations, and civil society organizations (CSOs) can file environmental claims. Similarly, in Bosnia and Herzegovina the Environmental Protection Act guarantees public participation in gaining access to information about hazardous substances and activities, and in engaging in decision-making. Zambia implements the World Bank’s Millennium Challenge Account, offering a tiered grievance process involving internal review, mediation and arbitration, designed to address broader societal concerns.

One submission called for the creation of corporate accountability agencies at the national level, suggesting that these would investigate and enforce corporate responsibility with the use of subpoenas, access to corporate documents, inspection privileges of facilities, as well as whistleblower protection plans.⁷⁰

70. Input from J. Pierre, R. Tupsee and Z. Mungroo. ↩

Corporations increasingly engage in dispute resolution and provide reparations, similar to tribunals, thereby underscoring the importance of transparency.⁷¹ Some rights holders are concerned that corporate hotlines, email addresses or website forms are only made available to employees, hence corporations should ensure that grievance mechanisms are fully inclusive of other rights holders.⁷² The company Brambles has local community forums to enable communication of concerns, while Taiwan High Speed Rail has a process to report noise complaints.⁷³ Alternatively, many companies have dialogue initiatives;⁷⁴ for example, Norsk Hydro has a stakeholder dialogue approach that includes engagement with, inter alia, Amnesty International, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), NGOs, unions and communities. In Brazil, the company has a permanent dialogue with right holders living in the territories where it has constructed a pipeline. It also set up a grievance “direct line” for communities, to enable transparent communication with the company.

71. See R. Van Loo, “The Corporation as Courthouse”, in Yale Journal on Regulation, Vol. 33 (2016). ↩
72. See, for example, www.erg.eu/en/sustainability/engagement. See also B. Grama, “Lost in Translation: Company Grievance Mechanisms and Human Rights”, in Journal of Human Rights Practice, Vol. 17, Iss. 3 (2025). ↩
73. See www.brambles.com/sustainability-governance; and www.neste.com/files/pdf/ cfdb59cb9567eeb9e15d86261f6bb2e1-220307_eng_neste_ar_stakeholder.pdf. ↩
74. See www.engie.com/en/group/social-responsibility/stakeholder-engagement. ↩

A caveat is that, although corporations may intend to ensure equal participation of all people, irrespective of gender, age, religion, caste, race, ethnicity, disability, etc., many societies have exclusionary social hierarchies that render formal, direct participation of vulnerable persons impossible. In such cases, corporations may seek to pursue informal consultations that would not risk backlash from the power structure within the local community. Indigenous Peoples report barriers to presenting solidarity demands to corporations, such as linguistic exclusion due to lack of translation resources, a lack of access to digital platforms, the inability to travel to capitals or corporate headquarters, and fear of reprisals/criminalization.

OECD supports a form of procedural solidarity, offering forums, networks and initiatives for corporations, stakeholders and policymakers to form local and international roundtables to discuss due diligence topics relating to supply chains, involving industries such as mineral extraction,⁷⁵ garment and footwear,⁷⁶ and food and agriculture. Social or environmental certification providers can assist corporations in identifying human rights or environmental red flags and correcting them.⁷⁷ This type of tool may be considered a practical preventive solidarity measure.

75. See https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/forum-responsible-mineral-supply-chains.htm. ↩
76. See https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/oecd-manufacturers-network-for-due-diligence-in-the-garment-and-footwear-sector.pdf. ↩
77. See www.investorhreddtools.org/certifications-red-flags.html. ↩

Principle 4 of the Guiding Principles states that States supporting businesses through investment should require human rights due diligence. One example of this is Impact Fund Denmark,⁷⁸ whose human rights risk assessments include “triggers”, such as: (a) projects in fragile States; (b) projects in countries with no guarantee of worker’s rights; (c) projects in countries with a high risk of corruption; and (d) projects involving a number of risk aspects, such as land-take, the use of migrant workers, location in water-scarce areas or the handling of personal data.

78. https://impactfund.dk/what-we-do/. ↩

Many consultancies provide support to companies seeking to improve their systems regarding risk assessment, reporting and the provision of remedies to claims.⁷⁹ The Global Compact has a “communication on progress” mechanism that measures the implementation of its 10 principles – covering human rights, labour, the environment and corruption – and the Sustainable Development Goals.⁸⁰ The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre has a digital platform with a company response mechanism that addresses due diligence issues.⁸¹

79. See www.bsr.org/en/focus/human-rights. ↩
80. See https://unglobalcompact.org/participation/report/cop. ↩
81. See www.business-humanrights.org/en/companies/. ↩

OECD member countries and other countries adhering to the OECD Guidance are required to establish national contact points to promote the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct,⁸² handle enquiries and contribute to the resolution of specific instances related to companies’ implementation of the Guidelines.⁸³ National contact points can have independent experts and a secretariat to receive complaints from a local community, trade union, NGO, employees or other interested parties affected by the company’s activities. For example, Luxembourg’s Ministry of the Economy provides such a service. The national contact point offers a forum for discussion, assists the business community, labour organizations, non-governmental organizations and other parties that deal with the issues raised, then seeks to resolve the disputed issues through dialogue and, if relevant, through conciliation or mediation, ideally within one year and with publication of a statement on the result of the proceedings. The statement is filed with the OECD Investment Committee.

82. See www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-guidelines-for-multinational-enterprises-on-responsible-business-conduct_81f92357-en.html. ↩
83. See https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/mneguidelines/. ↩

An example of an Indigenous community filing a complaint with a national contact point is the Mapuche-Williche communities of Southern Chile, which filed a complaint against Statkraft AS for allegedly failing to abide by due diligence human 75 See https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/forum-responsible-mineral-supply-chains.htm. 76 See https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/oecd-manufacturers-network-for-due-diligence-in-thegarment-and-footwear-sector.pdf. 77 See www.investorhreddtools.org/certifications-red-flags.html. 78 https://impactfund.dk/what-we-do/. 79 See www.bsr.org/en/focus/human-rights. 80 See https://unglobalcompact.org/participation/report/cop. 81 See www.business-humanrights.org/en/companies/. 82 See www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-guidelines-for-multinational-enterprises-onresponsible-business-conduct_81f92357-en.html. 83 See https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/mneguidelines/. rights and environmental standards when developing three hydro-power plants along the Pilmaiquén river in Southern Chile.⁸⁴

84. See www.responsiblebusiness.no/dialogue-and-mediation/specific-instances/mapuche-williche-vs-statkraft-as/. ↩

The OECD Guidance establishes principles of good governance for due diligence collaborative initiatives, including: (a) having established a functioning, accessible and effective grievance mechanism that enables stakeholders to raise concerns relating to the activities of the initiative itself, without fear of retribution; and (b) having a process for enabling stakeholder and expert consultation on the objectives and activities of the initiative.⁸⁵ Luxembourg is preparing to establish a national supervisory authority with powers to monitor companies’ due diligence obligations and to receive and examine complaints from civil society organizations in order to complement the national contact point.

85. See https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/OECD-Due-Diligence-Guidance-for-Responsible-Business-Conduct.pdf, p. 54. ↩

In the above-mentioned Tripartite Declaration, ILO calls upon States to respect the right of workers to engage in transnational solidarity consultations through meetings across borders. It is also calls upon corporations not to transfer workers as a means to defeat negotiations. Moreover, it states that corporations should make alternative dispute resolutions mechanisms and allow workers free access to justice for effective remedy. It also states that corporations should ensure supply chain accountability.⁸⁶ Article 14 of the European Union directive on corporate sustainable due diligence notes that complaints may be submitted by natural or legal persons, CSOs, human rights defenders and trade unions.

86. Tripartite Declaration, paras. 54, 59, 64–65 and 67–68. ↩

Similarly, article 5 of the revised draft declaration states that the right to international solidarity belongs to and may be claimed by all individuals and peoples, individually and in association with others, without jurisdictional limitation. Furthermore, article 6, paragraph 2, states that international organizations have the duty to respect the right to international solidarity. To that end, international organizations also have the obligation to refrain from conduct that aids, assists, controls or coerces a State or other international organization to breach obligations under international law.

Hence, the World Bank would be respecting solidarity by conducting human rights and environmental risk assessments to ensure that that their loans to companies do not ignore violations, such as forced labour of children or forest deforestation.⁸⁷

87. See www.ituc-csi.org/world-bank-leaves-door-open-to. ↩

Article 6, paragraph 3, of the revised draft declaration recognizes that non-State actors also have the duty to respect the right to international solidarity and should provide mechanisms for the presentation of solidarity demands by civil society, labour unions, Indigenous Peoples and other groups. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises state that enterprises should have stakeholder engagement procedures.

In a report,⁸⁸ the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises examined the issue of access to procedural justice. Procedural justice problems include the difficulty of civil society groups to be recognized as having standing in cases affecting communities, such groups being faced with a disproportionate burden of proof, the high cost of litigation, delays in judicial proceedings, and Indigenous Peoples being denied the right of participation 84 See www.responsiblebusiness.no/dialogue-and-mediation/specific-instances/mapuche-willichevs-statkraft-as/. 85 See https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/OECD-Due-Diligence-Guidance-for-Responsible-BusinessConduct.pdf, p. 54. 86 Tripartite Declaration, paras. 54, 59, 64–65 and 67–68. 87 See www.ituc-csi.org/world-bank-leaves-door-open-to. 88 A/78/155. 16/22 in alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms addressing the extractive activities on their territory.

88. A/78/155. ↩

Some civil society groups turn to alternative solidarity forms of engagement with corporations in order to address solidarity concerns. For example, one study analysed the strategic choice of civil society groups to adopt constructive, inclusive solidarity discourses to diminish polarization with corporations when calling for the reduction of plastic production.⁸⁹ Corporations can become partners with civil society in finding solutions.

89. See I. Castelló and D. Lopez-Berzosa, “Affects in Online Stakeholder Engagement: A Dissensus Perspective”, in Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 33, Iss. 1 (2023), pp. 180–215. ↩

The European Union directive on corporate sustainable due diligence establishes the obligation of corporations to ensure an adequate standard of living for its workers. In the above-mentioned Tripartite Declaration, ILO calls for a type of solidarity economy approach to worker’s rights in relation to the community.⁹⁰

90. Tripartite Declaration, paras. 41 and 42. ↩

One study describes the evolution of solidarity community ownership projects to respond to exclusion from the housing market.⁹¹ Mexico has promoted solidarity initiatives, such as internal development banks to provide credit to lower-income people and community enterprises to provide education to Indigenous communities.⁹² Another study describes a framework to construct a social solidarity economy system based on cooperatives, associations and social enterprises that would promote social inclusion and sustainability.⁹³ However, some studies indicate that the formalization of small-scale endeavours, such as artisanal mining, into cooperatives does not necessarily guarantee that there will be a genuine emancipation of workers in the absence of a shift in power relations.⁹⁴

91. See K. Okafor, “Community Ownership in New York City: The Housing Development Fund Corporation”, in New York University Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 30, p. 413 (2022). ↩
92. See O. Cuéllar, “El Fondo Nacional De Empresas en Solidaridad. Alcances y perspectivas”, in Sociológica México, No. 37 (2015): pp. 237–249; and M. Giovannini et al, “Empresas comunitarias para la solidaridad, la educación y el Buen Vivir: un estudio de caso en México”, in Otra Economía, Vol. 10, No. 19 (2016). ↩
93. See T. Bucos, “Social and solidarity economy: principles and contributions to sustainable development and social inclusion”, in European Journal of Accounting, Finance and Business, Vol. 12, Iss. 3 (2024). ↩
94. See J. de Haan and S. Geenen, “Mining cooperatives in Eastern DRC The interplay between historical power relations and formal institutions”, in The Extractive Industries and Society, Vol. 3, Iss. 3 (2016). ↩

Principle 10 of the United Nations Global Compact states that businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.⁹⁵ The Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises issued a report calling for businesses to incorporate human rights within anti-corruption compliance assessments.⁹⁶ Article 3, paragraph 7, of the revised draft declaration calls for anti-corruption solidarity, stating that “combating corruption and illicit financial flows through investigation, asset recovery, tracing and freezing of the proceeds of corruption and the return and allocation of stolen funds to victims, where possible”.

95. See https://unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles. ↩
96. A/HRC/44/43. ↩

The European Union directive on corporate sustainable due diligence highlights the importance of addressing corruption when conducting a due diligence evaluation.

One study warns of the need to confront negative corporate actions that weaken democratic institutions, stating that “a progressive corporate law project should interrogate those practices, such as corporate campaign spending and lobbying, that allow corporate power to interfere with and retard democratic governance”.⁹⁷ Such actions could be framed as collusion rather than solidarity.⁹⁸

97. See K. Testy, “Linking Progressive Corporate Law with Progressive Social Movements”, in Tulane Law Review, Vol. 76, Iss. 5 and 6 (2002). ↩
98. See S. Vaheesana and N. Schneider, “Cooperative Enterprise as an Antimonopoly Strategy”, in Penn State Law Review, Vol. 124, Iss. 1 (2019). ↩

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has recommended that State Parties continue to strengthen measures to combat illicit flows and cross-border tax evasion and tax fraud, in particular by wealthy individuals and corporations, in order to contribute to international efforts to combat illicit flows, tax evasion and tax fraud and to enable other countries to secure the financial resources necessary for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights.⁹⁹ The Committee has also called upon States to show solidarity by combating tax evasion.¹⁰⁰

99. See E/C.12/LUX/CO/4, para. 15; A/HRC/43/43/Add.1, para. 12; and CCPR/C/MDV/CO/2, para. 14. ↩
100. See E/C.12/CHE/CO/4, para. 13; E/C.12/ZAF/CO/1, para. 17; E/C.12/GBR/CO/6, para. 17; and A/HRC/53/24/Add.2, para. 24. ↩

Article 2 of the revised draft declaration defines reactive solidarity as “characterized by collective or individual actions of the aforesaid actors to respond to and solve global challenges, including … armed conflict … and corruption”. Corporations that pursue anti-corruption due diligence on subcontractors, marketplace alliances, vendors and suppliers and conduct corruption risk assessments, such as Deloitte, are meeting this solidarity standard.¹⁰¹

101. See www.deloitte.com/global/en/about/story/purpose-values/anti-corruption-commitment.html. ↩

OECD has established Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas,¹⁰² as well as a Mining Regions and Cities Initiative that promotes solidarity as it pursues partnerships with Governments, the private sector, civil society and Indigenous Peoples. OECD calls upon companies to identify and respond to human rights and environmental risks in the supply chain, carry out independent audits and produce annual reports. The OECD Due Diligence Guidance calls for the rejection of direct or indirect support to non-State armed groups or public or private security forces that engage in illegal actions, such as illegally controlling mines or illegal taxation/extortion. The Initiative focuses on strategies for “improved opportunities for women and young people in the mining value chain, stronger benefit-sharing agreements and partnerships for community infrastructure, including housing and public services. Regarding the environment, there is an emphasis on practices to enhance the role of regions in the green transition and circular economy practices in mining as well as environmental protection and monitoring”.¹⁰³

102. See www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-due-diligence-guidance-for-responsible-supply-chains-of-minerals-from-conflict-affected-and-high-risk-areas_9789264252479-en.html. ↩
103. See www.oecd.org/en/topics/mining-regions-and-cities.html. ↩

The United Nations Development Programme has created a guide for corporations on due diligence in conflict situations that underscores that their activities – from their mere presence to hiring and the provision of services or products – will never be perceived as neutral within a conflict zone; hence the need to conduct a due diligence assessment for heightened risks that will assess the company’s potential contribution to violence.¹⁰⁴ The guide provides red flags for heightened due diligence, including: the amassing of weapons, especially firearms, in particular by non-State groups; weak or absent State structures, including the imposition of emergency laws or extraordinary security measures, or the suspension of, or interference with, vital State institutions, particularly if this results in the exclusion of vulnerable or minority; records of serious violations of international human rights and/or humanitarian law; increased inflammatory rhetoric or hate speech targeting specific groups or individuals; signs of militia or paramilitary group recruitment, public appearances or other activity; strengthening of the State security apparatus or mobilization against specific groups; the strict control or banning of communication channels, including control of media, distortion of facts, censorship, propaganda and misinformation, and the lack of access to reliable objective information or of objective independent media, such as television and radio, and Internet outages or website closures; the expulsion or banning of non-governmental organizations, international organizations, media outlets or other relevant actors; groups of individuals at the mercy of an authority they oppose or that perceives them, or the members of their families and communities, as the enemy; people being unprotected from acts of violence perpetrated against them; people being unable to meet their basic needs because of a climate of fear and violence; or the presence of displaced persons, including internally displaced persons.

104. See www.undp.org/publications/heightened-human-rights-due-diligence-business-conflict-affected-contexts-guide; www.ohchr.org/en/business-and-human-rights/business-human-rights-and-conflict-affected-regions-project; www.voluntaryprinciples.org; http://www.state.gov/division-for-trade-policy-and-negotiations/conflict-diamonds-and-the-kimberley-process; www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act30/3544/2021/en; and https://www.genesys-hannover.de/EN/Themen/Min_rohstoffe/CTC/Concept_MC/CTC-Standards-Principles/ctc_standards-principles_node_en.htmlm. ↩

Some corporations, such as Ericsson, have created their own internal guidelines for these situations.¹⁰⁵ The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has published standards on business and human rights that include cases of corporate complicity in the displacement of Indigenous Peoples, assassination and torture of union leaders, and other human rights violations.¹⁰⁶

105. See www.ericsson.com/4ac68d/assets/local/about-ericsson/sustainability-and-corporate-responsibility/documents/2020/statement-on-sourcing-of-minerals-from-cahra.pdf. ↩
106. See www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/business_human_rights_inte_american_standards.pdf. ↩

At its 113th session, in 2025, the International Labour Conference adopted – by consensus and pursuant to article 33 of the ILO Constitution – resolution LC.113/ Resolution I, by which it urges Governments, companies and unions in ILO member States to ensure that their actions do not enable the continued repression carried out 103 See www.oecd.org/en/topics/mining-regions-and-cities.html. 104 See www.undp.org/publications/heightened-human-rights-due-diligence-business-conflictaffected-contexts-guide; www.ohchr.org/en/business-and-human-rights/business-human-rightsand-conflict-affected-regions-project; www.voluntaryprinciples.org; http://www.state.gov/division-for-trade-policy-and-negotiations/conflict-diamonds-and-thekimberley-process; www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act30/3544/2021/en; and https://www.genesys-hannover.de/EN/Themen/Min_rohstoffe/CTC/Concept_MC/CTCStandards-Principles/ctc_standards-principles_node_en.htmlm. 105 See www.ericsson.com/4ac68d/assets/local/about-ericsson/sustainability-and-corporateresponsibility/documents/2020/statement-on-sourcing-of-minerals-from-cahra.pdf. 106 See www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/business_human_rights_inte_american_standards.pdf. by the military junta in Myanmar.¹⁰⁷ This requires a review of investments, supply chains and cooperation that may indirectly support the regime, as well as the supply of weapons, jet fuel and financial flows to the military junta. The Conference also called for the release of all persons detained for trade union activities, and the cessation of attacks on civil society.

107. See www.ituc-csi.org/Myanmar-Historic-decision-to-hold-junta-accountable. ↩

In one study, it is suggested there is a new trend towards seeking solidarity justice in the home State of the corporation, and that there are three basic categories of transnational cases litigating eco-human toxicity impacts: workplace health and safety; long term pollution of the environment; and toxic incidents.¹⁰⁸ The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre has a “just transition” tracking tool that provides an overview of relevant cases.¹⁰⁹ There have also been criminal cases brought against corporations that provide supplies to Governments that are then used in international crimes.¹¹⁰ In the above-mentioned study, it is also suggested that civil society and State actors should challenge predatory or unsustainable corporate actors. It is asserted that counter-corporate litigation also suggests that a form of legal transnationalism may enable forms of solidarity across global value chains; that there is a slow willingness emerging on the part of the courts in major economies to hear cases involving harms committed abroad in value chains governed by corporations domiciled at home.

108. See M.B. Taylor, “Counter Corporate Litigation: Remedy, Regulation, and Repression in the Struggle for a Just Transition”, in Sustainability, No. 13 (2021). ↩
109. See www.business-humanrights.org/en/from-us/just-transition-litigation-tracking-tool/. ↩
110. See L.M. Coleman et al, “Reparation for extractivist genocide: harm, responsibility and implications for a just transition”, in The International Journal of Human Rights (2025). ↩

Positive corporate solidarity requires a change in corporate culture for future leaders. Some institutions – such as the Geneva Center for Business and Human Rights, the New York University Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, the Institute for Human Rights and Business, the University of California Berkeley Haas School of Business, the University of Dundee, the University of Oslo Centre for Global Sustainability, and the University of Paris-Saclay – have created syllabuses that teach business leaders how to harmonize for-profit corporate business concerns with non-profit aims, including sustainable development and respect for human rights. For example, the Geneva Center for Business and Human Rights conducts case studies analysing certain choices of corporations, such as improving local capacity to retain the processing of diamonds within the country of origin, instead of exporting them; formalizing artisanal mining to prevent accidents and forced labour abuses within the cobalt sector; and sustainably sourcing rubber to prevent deforestation by the athletic shoe sector.¹¹¹ Some companies have built schools; expanded access to digital education or education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics; or provided scholarships to young people from the community or grant support to local universities in order to promote research in their sectors, such as mining or oil, as well sustainable energy, such as wind farms, to enable communities to benefit from company beyond its time of activities.¹¹²

111. See https://gcbhr.org/insights/publications/case-studies/. ↩
112. See www.oecd.org/en/publications/enhancing-regional-mining-ecosystems-in-oulu-region-finland_48ca6db7-en.html. ↩

Corporations must proactively address the challenge of ensuring that their solidarity initiatives are sustainable past their exit from States, avoiding inaction.¹¹³ It is essential to establish transparent communication channels between corporations, rights holders, civil society, trade unions, Indigenous Peoples and State representatives to implement effective solidarity strategies. Rights holders should participate in corporate governance, audits, risk assessments, certification, grievance mechanisms, corporate boards and the design of remedies. Benefit-sharing should be prioritized within State and corporate policy as a key prong of a sustainable solidarity framework. Civil society groups should be granted access to justice at the national and international levels to address corporate accountability for human rights violations and damage to the environment, and to pursue solidarity cases. As stated in one input for the present report: “without civil society and free trade unions, the notion of corporate solidarity remains empty. Ensuring that corporations provide channels for stakeholder input, respect environmental and labour rights, and do not retaliate against or abet the persecution of activists is fundamental to the spirit of international solidarity and human rights.”

113. See https://procurementmag.com/operations/ramboll-the-cost-of-inaction-on-human-rights-due-diligence. ↩

The Independent Expert recommends that States:
(a) Commit to solidarity approaches to diminish inequality by ensuring that corporations provide effective remedies for human rights violations and environmental harm;
(b) In collaboration with corporations, strengthen the protection of international solidarity actors, in particular trade unions and civil society organizations engaged in solidarity actions on behalf of workers, Indigenous Peoples and other rights holders affected by corporate activities;
(c) Create effective access to justice mechanisms for civil society actors filing solidarity cases, and consider establishing corporate accountability agencies;
(d) Ratify the ILO Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1975 (No. 143), the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families and the ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No. 188);
(e) Implement International Labour Conference resolution ILC.112/ Resolution V, concerning decent work and the care economy;
(f) Support the creation of cooperatives in different sectors.

The Independent Expert recommends that corporations:
(a) Ensure that due diligence risk assessments are transparent in the identification of human rights and environmental issues in their operations, and include rights holders in the design of solidarity strategies;
(b) Partner with civil society organizations to identify potential and actual human rights, anti-corruption and environmental concerns and co-design effective remedies and preventive actions;
(c) Ensure that audits are conducted by independent actors that have competence in relevant human rights and environmental law;
(d) Openly share human rights and environmental audits with rights holders in order to jointly find effective remedies;
(e) Desist from pursuing strategic litigation against solidarity actors and issue a policy of zero tolerance of violence, “red-tagging” or surveillance;
(f) In conjunction with States, provide binding, accessible, transparent, effective and community-designed solidarity demands mechanisms for rights holders to use without reprisal;
(g) Identify managers responsible for receiving solidarity demands and provide clear guidance on the role of corporate leadership in the respective follow-up;
(h) Conduct assessments to measure trust in complaint/demand mechanisms;
(i) Include Indigenous Peoples in certification mechanisms, including and within management and boards, with veto power;
(j) Provide equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms to Indigenous Peoples and other rights holders;
(k) Pay a global minimum tax rate and contribute to a global solidarity fund to address environmental and human rights challenges related to corporate activity;
(l) Conduct heightened due diligence risk assessments in conflict zones, and design strategies for transparent communication with civil society, as well as effective remedies for violations of human rights or damage to the environment;
(m) Cooperate with national human rights institutions to identify solidarity concerns held by rights holders, design responsive and preventive policies and remedies, ensure follow-up on solidarity demands and provide appropriate remedies;
(n) Ensure that grievance mechanisms, such as hotlines, are available to all rights holders, and include rights holders in the design of remedies;
(o) For business schools, include mandatory courses on human rights and environmental sustainability within their degree programmes;
(p) Ensure that human rights and environmental risk and impact assessments always include a focus on gender discrimination;
(q) Ensure that due diligence legislative and policy standards include gender discrimination and mitigation, prevention and response, and include women on corporate boards;
(r) Ensure that impact assessments correct the issue of double materiality and lower the standard required to measure environmental harm;
(s) Ensure due diligence legislation and policy, as well as human rights and environmental impact assessments, include respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights, including free, prior and informed consent, abiding by community-level standards;
(t) Ensure due diligence legislation and policy incorporate children’s rights, including procedural guarantees;¹¹⁴
(u) For fishing corporations, ensure that migrant fishers are allowed to form their own unions.

114. See https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/child-labour-risks-in-the-minerals-supply-chain.htm. ↩

The Independent Expert recommends that the World Bank conduct human rights and environmental risk assessments when granting loans to corporations to prevent violations.