Fourteenth session of the Forum on Business and Human Rights

Since its launch in 2012, the Forum on Business and Human Rights has evolved into the principal global gathering dedicated to advancing the business and human rights agenda. Created by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 17/4, in which the Council also endorsed the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the Forum provides a platform for examining current developments and persistent challenges in implementing the Guiding Principles. It further serves to deepen dialogue and cooperation across sectors, highlight issues specific to certain rights holders, industries and contexts, and showcase emerging positive practices.

The Forum is guided and chaired by the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises and organized by its secretariat at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The present report was prepared by the Working Group in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 53/3, in which the Council invited the Working Group to submit a report on the proceedings and thematic recommendations of the Forum to the Council for its consideration.

The programme of the fourteenth session of the Forum¹ comprised two plenary sessions and 20 parallel sessions organized by the Working Group, in cooperation with OHCHR, partner organizations and other stakeholders following an open call for proposals, which generated more than 300 proposals. The Forum’s agenda further included six informal dialogues designed to encourage direct, structured thematic exchange and networking among diverse participants, as well as two consultations – one on agribusiness, food security and human rights, and the other on corporate governance, business and human rights – to support the Working Group’s thematic reports to the Human Rights Council² and the General Assembly,³ respectively.

1. See https://forumbhr2025.sched.com/. ↩
2. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2025/call-input-report-agri-business-food-security-and-human-rights. ↩
3. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2026/call-inputs-report-corporate-governance-business-and-human-rights-81st-session. ↩

The theme of the fourteenth session of the Forum, “Accelerating action on business and human rights amid crises and transformations”, guided the discussions. Participants considered how States and businesses are fulfilling their respective duties and responsibilities under the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights at a time marked by geopolitical tensions, conflict, widening inequalities, rapid technological developments, climate change, environmental degradation and increasingly complex global value chains. Central to the conversations was the evolving understanding of the “smart mix” of measures required now and in the years ahead. Participants reflected on what has proved to be effective, where gaps persist and how promising regulatory and policy approaches can more effectively advance business respect for human rights and corporate accountability.

The programme included region-focused sessions dedicated to trends, challenges and emerging practices in Africa, Asia-Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Middle East and North Africa, and Western European and other States. Specific attention was paid to the situation of groups at heightened risk of business-related human rights abuses, such as Indigenous Peoples, human rights defenders, women, youth and migrant workers, with an emphasis on preventing and addressing intersecting forms of discrimination based on various factors, such as gender, age, sexual orientation or gender identity, nationality, ethnicity, social status, religion and disability. The Forum also included thematic and sector-specific sessions, including on conflicts, artificial intelligence, small and medium-sized enterprises, critical minerals and certification schemes.

Due to the financial constraints currently affecting the United Nations, both the Working Group and OHCHR operated with reduced capacities, resources and venue availability during the organization of the fourteenth session of the Forum. As a result, the 1 See https://forumbhr2025.sched.com/. 2 See https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2025/call-input-report-agri-business-food-security-andhuman-rights. 3 See https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2026/call-inputs-report-corporate-governance-businessand-human-rights-81st-session. GE.26-05702 overall number of sessions and meeting rooms was lower than in previous years. Despite these limitations, the Working Group has been actively exploring ways to navigate this new operating environment and to continue responding to participants’ expectations, while recognizing that additional resources will be required to further advance these efforts.

The Forum drew its largest audience to date, with more than 4,600 participants from 146 countries – 3,600 attending in person and 1,060 joining virtually – representing a broad spectrum of stakeholder groups (see table below). Some 65 per cent of registered participants and 58 per cent of those with official speaking roles identified themselves as women.
Category of participating stakeholders Percentage
Academic institutions 11
Civil society organizations, affected stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples’ groups 41
Multi-stakeholder initiatives 2
National human rights institutions 2
Private sector (business enterprises, business/industry associations, consultancies, law firms, investors) 27
States 6
Trade unions 3
United Nations entities/intergovernmental organizations 5
Other 3

The present report offers an overview of the proceedings of the fourteenth session of the Forum and synthesizes the principal messages that emerged during the three-day event. It is intended to be read alongside the programme, session concept notes and available recordings, which are accessible on the Forum website.⁴

4. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/events/sessions/2025/14th-united-nations-forum-business-and-human-rights. ↩

The fourteenth session of the Forum was opened by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, who noted that corporate power had grown dramatically, sometimes surpassing the economies of entire countries. He stressed the human rights risks posed by emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, the climate crisis, exploitation of workers, and attacks on human rights defenders. Nevertheless, he highlighted positive practices such as businesses aligning human rights risk management with international standards, investing in renewable energy, respecting Indigenous rights and creating grievance mechanisms. He called for strengthened laws, corporate accountability and multi-stakeholder collaboration. He concluded by noting that the entire human rights ecosystem was in survival mode and calling for a global alliance for human rights to put human rights at the heart of public and political life.

The Chair of the Working Group on business and human rights welcomed participants, noting that it was the world’s largest gathering dedicated to advancing the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. She warned that armed conflicts, widening inequalities, technological disruption and environmental degradation were destabilizing societies, with human rights increasingly under attack and marginalized groups disproportionately exposed to wide-ranging adverse impacts. In this context, she stressed the importance of shifting from checklist compliance to conscience. While commending businesses and States adopting positive practices, she underscored gaps where business and human rights understanding remained limited. She highlighted the essential role of human 4 See https://www.ohchr.org/en/events/sessions/2025/14th-united-nations-forum-business-and-humanrights. 5 See https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1u/k1up17fe5w. GE.26-05702 rights defenders as guardians of accountability whose safety was paramount. She concluded by emphasizing that the Guiding Principles should remain the compass and a beacon of hope in current turbulent times.

The Deputy Director General for Operations of the International Organization for Migration emphasized that the global landscape for business and human rights faced unprecedented strain from conflicts, climate shocks, economic uncertainty and rapid technological change. She highlighted how the polycrisis had exposed vulnerabilities in labour markets, particularly for migrant workers, and stressed structural issues such as policy gaps, weak enforcement and exploitative recruitment. She noted opportunities for progress through fair recruitment, stronger supply chain due diligence, digital tools and rights-based green transitions. She concluded that protecting migrant workers required shared responsibility, innovation and alignment among Governments, businesses and international organizations to ensure that human rights and decent work were reinforced as the global standard.

The Presidential Adviser for Human Rights of Colombia shared some key lessons from her country’s experience: human rights due diligence must be people-centred and integrated across government and business operations; legal frameworks should be coherent, with clear standards, strengthened capacities and inter-institutional coordination; and governance spaces should promote dialogue, participation and accountability, ensuring the protection of vulnerable communities. She stressed that policies must align with international human rights instruments and environmental standards, adding that businesses must embed human rights in their strategies and supply chains. She underscored that effective governance required trust, collaboration and joint solutions that placed human dignity at the centre of development, balancing economic activity with the protection of and respect for rights.

The co-founder of Virgin Group, speaking in a pre-recorded video message, emphasized the role of businesses in supporting the implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. He emphasized that stability and fairness were essential for trade and commerce to flourish and argued that building support for universal human rights was one of the most important investments that businesses could make. He made a plea for more business leaders to step forward and speak up for human rights, stressing that business voices did matter. Calling upon businesses to act as advocates for the greater good, he underscored that corporate advocacy and corporate responsibility went hand in hand and that embracing both was what enabled businesses to be part of the solution.

The Chair of the Working Party on Responsible Business Conduct of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) highlighted that the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, updated in 2023, remained fit for purpose, stressing that the lack of implementation on the ground was not due to insufficient standards and that appropriate instruments were available to address current challenges. She highlighted three points. First, she stated that human rights due diligence began at home, requiring Governments to align policies and companies to focus on their own operations and listen to stakeholders. Second, she warned against overcomplicating due diligence, noting that more data did not automatically lead to better outcomes and that reporting was a means to an end. Third, she emphasized that human rights were about people, calling for the inclusion of all affected rights holders and for the human element to be brought back.

The Chief Sustainability Officer of Inter IKEA Group stated that climate change, rising inequalities and geopolitical tensions were impacting people and businesses every day. She stressed that businesses could not exist without people and that delivering on human rights commitments was essential to success and growth. She added that IKEA had made its human rights commitments clear, actionable and measurable by updating its sustainability strategy and adopting a full value chain approach. She noted that IKEA had embraced legislative requirements, engaged stakeholders to improve human rights due diligence and valued collaboration. She highlighted partnerships to promote human rights and well-being across the value chain and concluded that businesses must act decisively, demonstrating leadership that aligned business resilience with positive societal impact.

The Leader of the Strategic Area on Democratization and Human Rights at CEE Bankwatch Network said that international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and regional banks, were among the most powerful actors determining development paths and that this power entailed a responsibility to avoid human rights violations and ensure that development was sustainable and inclusive. She urged international financial institutions to strengthen engagement with civil society in country strategies, policy reforms and major public investments and to strengthen their human rights due diligence before project approvals in high-risk countries and make them public. She stressed that participation must not expose people to intimidation and retaliation and concluded that development was about people’s ability to shape their future and exercise their rights.

An Indigenous representative spoke on behalf of the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus, expressing deep concern over continued violations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights, including criminalization and attacks on human rights defenders. He said that they faced an increasing number of mining, energy and development projects imposed without their free, prior and informed consent, driving dispossession and environmental harm. He criticized the exclusion of key climate measures and described current approaches as false solutions. He welcomed the recognition by the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at its thirtieth session of Indigenous Peoples’ rights but stressed the need for enforceable action. He called for participation in national action plans, mandatory human rights due diligence and respect for self-determination. He warned that free, prior and informed consent processes without the right not to consent would be a violation of Indigenous Peoples’ rights and could undermine credible implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights by States and businesses.

The Ambassador of Maldives and Vice-President of the Human Rights Council praised the Working Group and participants for advancing responsible business practices. She emphasized the Forum’s role in translating the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights into action amid geopolitical, environmental, technological and social crises. She highlighted three priorities: developing national action plans and due diligence laws; ensuring accessible accountability and remedy mechanisms; and addressing the disproportionate impact of crises on marginalized groups, with civil society and human rights defenders playing a vital role. She reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to safe, inclusive United Nations spaces and to fully supporting the business and human rights agenda.

The Deputy Executive Director of the United Nations Global Compact highlighted the work of businesses in advancing human rights and emphasized that the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights provided essential guardrails for just and resilient economic growth. Amid trade tensions, climate change, displacement and rising inequalities, she reaffirmed that human rights were the solution. She stressed that cross-sector partnerships and a shared vision of dignity were crucial. With over 20,000 companies in 160 countries participating, the United Nations Global Compact showed real momentum, although gaps remained, especially in supply chains. She called for scaled, coordinated and targeted action, urging all actors to lead with bold ambition and a common purpose to advance responsible business practices globally.

The Director of the Permanent Committee for Human Rights of the United Arab Emirates highlighted concrete examples of progress in her country, including stronger labour laws, anti-trafficking measures and ratification of International Labour Organization (ILO) protocols. She emphasized enforcement tools such as wage protection systems and labour dispute committees and drew attention to the climate law and artificial intelligence ethics charter of the United Arab Emirates as models for ensuring that innovation served humanity. She concluded that robust governance formed the foundation for translating principles into action. 6 See https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1w/k1wmvt6ntc. GE.26-05702

A representative of the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus expressed deep concern, as Indigenous Peoples continued to face widespread violations of their individual and collective rights. She highlighted the harmful expansion of mining, transition minerals, deep-sea extraction, renewable energy, agribusiness, infrastructure and fossil fuel operations imposed without respecting self-determination or free, prior and informed consent, causing dispossession, ecosystem degradation, livelihood loss and health harms. She welcomed the affirmation by the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at its thirtieth session that just transition pathways must respect internationally recognized rights and stressed the centrality of free, prior and informed consent to self-determination. She called for full participation in national action plans and mandatory human rights due diligence, urged upholding Indigenous rights and emphasized that credible implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights was impossible without self-determination.

The Branch Chief of the Better Work Programme at ILO emphasized that trust was fragile during crises and highlighted three key challenges: erosion of fundamental rights, including declines in freedom of association and collective bargaining; exclusion of women, informal workers, youth and vulnerable communities from dialogue; and short-term crisis responses that bypassed consultation and weakened trust. She explained that ILO had responded by strengthening institutions and supporting nearly 80 national social pacts (2019–2024), helping countries to navigate reforms and the cost-of-living crisis. She underscored the centrality of freedom of association, the ILO Employment and Decent Work for Peace and Resilience Recommendation, 2017 (No. 205), and evidence from Better Work showing that mature bipartite dialogue boosted resilience, concluding that social dialogue in crisis was not a luxury but a lifeline.

The Managing Director of Keep IT Cool outlined the company’s key practices to promote human rights, emphasizing positive incentives over enforcement to support long-term thinking, safer production and secure livelihoods. The company developed clear safeguarding policies and simplified standard operating procedures for semi-skilled workers, ensuring awareness throughout operations. Ongoing training and stakeholder engagement maintained ethical practices and responsiveness to emerging risks. Transparent pricing and supply-chain accountability, including monitoring to prevent child and forced labour, unsafe conditions and unfair buying practices, were highlighted. He also emphasized openness to third-party audits and internal review, aiming for full compliance rather than merely meeting minimum standards.

The departing Executive Director of the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre identified extreme inequality, the ecological crisis and the technological revolution as the core drivers of corporate abuse. He cautioned that green and technological transitions could deepen inequities, with the risk and cost of those transitions being passed down the supply chain to the most vulnerable people. To address this inequality and achieve far fairer outcomes from these transitions, he stressed the need to have vibrant democracies and decisive Governments that would listen to their citizens and bring systemic change that delivered a genuine shared prosperity out of these transitions. He urged breaking silos, engaging public opinion to counter deregulation and focusing on high-risk sectors where defenders faced the greatest danger.

The President of the Georgian Trade Union Confederation emphasized that workers and their unions must have a real voice and that safeguarding workers was essential for businesses pursuing sustainability and human rights, noting the progress made in supply chain due diligence. She warned that violations of workers’ rights harmed communities and economies, creating corporate complicity risks. An enabling environment required robust legal and policy frameworks; while some countries had strengthened social dialogue, others had restricted it. She insisted that current business models must shift towards constructive industrial relations grounded in freedom of association and collective bargaining, advocating for global regulation, genuine corporate accountability and a binding United Nations treaty to embed human rights in business.

The Director of Programmes at the Laudes Foundation noted that converging global transitions were profoundly affecting workers, communities and business. He highlighted the opportunity for business to act as a force for good by addressing climate impacts, restoring nature and respecting rights, drawing lessons from funding bold partners. He emphasized shared problem definition, co-governance and accountability, blended and aligned finance, and outcome measurement that reflected real impact. He cited the Regenerative Production Landscape Collaboratives in several countries, which were landscape-level platforms where farmers, communities, brands, local government, technical partners and funders governed together. He called for embedding human rights into every transition plan, investing in models that aligned interests across entire systems, and mobilizing patient, blended finance for sustainable transformation.

The Programme Manager at Conectando Derechos and member of the Latin American Business and Human Rights Scholar Association noted that the region of Latin America faced a volatile context, marked by shrinking civic space and narratives of hate targeting feminists, LGBTIQ+ persons, Indigenous Peoples, environmental defenders and academics. She highlighted setbacks relating to pillar I of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, such as regressive policies at the country level, along with discriminatory legislation in over 60 countries. With regard to pillar II, she noted the neglect of marginalized groups in diversity, equity and inclusion policies, funding cuts for multilateral organizations, and lobbying to halt corporate sustainability regulations. She stressed the rise in fear and violence and emphasized academia’s role in providing evidence, supporting multi-stakeholder dialogue and producing reliable data for human rights-informed decision-making.

In closing, the Vice-Chair of the Working Group thanked all speakers, organizers, participants and volunteers. He stressed that, in precarious times of interlocking crises, renewed solidarity and unity of purpose were urgently required. He emphasized that State action to enhance mandatory human rights due diligence and access to remedy for victims was critical, calling upon States to adopt legislation and national action plans and ensure their effective implementation. He urged businesses to proactively integrate the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights across value chains, corporate policies, procurement standards and grievance mechanisms. He highlighted the importance of capacity development and education, recognizing the role of academic institutions, civil society, Indigenous groups and human rights defenders. He concluded that economic development that neglected human rights would lead to further crises and called for a just, accountable global economy.

The participants in the thematic sessions and informal dialogue sessions examined the main drivers and contextual factors of overlapping crises and transformations, and the need for businesses, States and other stakeholders to develop innovative solutions and approaches to ensure that respect for human rights by businesses was upheld in those contexts and that business actions or omissions did not exacerbate or compound the negative impacts of such crises.

In a session on just transition, participants underscored the need to place children, youth, women and Indigenous Peoples at the centre of solutions and decision-making, in the light of the disproportionate climate impacts that they experienced. Interventions highlighted the normative relevance of international human rights standards, in particular the Convention on the Rights of the Child, including general comment No. 26 (2023) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, stressing children’s right to participate and Indigenous Peoples’ rights to self-determination and to free, prior and informed consent. Speakers converged on the importance of participatory, accountable and non-discriminatory transition governance, supported by robust human rights due diligence across supply chains, transparent accountability mechanisms and access to effective remedy. While noting emerging positive developments, including increased business attention to human rights due diligence, the discussion also revealed persistent gaps, such as the minimal integration of children’s rights into climate finance, ongoing risks to human rights defenders, opaque supply chains and uneven recognition of Indigenous Peoples across jurisdictions. Participants emphasized that a credible just transition required moving beyond extractive and technocratic models towards rights-based partnerships that centred dignity, participation and intergenerational equity.

A session on environmental accountability and transformative business practices highlighted deep structural and systemic challenges that continued to undermine rights-based environmental governance. Participants emphasized that marginalized communities bore disproportionate environmental harms through displacement, land acquisition, toxic pollution and climate-induced migration, while remaining largely excluded from decision-making and access to effective remedy. The dialogue identified persistent gaps on the part of States and intergovernmental organizations, notably fragmented and inconsistent human rights due diligence standards, including across regulations on deforestation, climate, and nature conservation, as well as weak enforcement mechanisms. The importance of mandatory human rights due diligence covering all human rights impacts, including environmental harm, was highlighted. Against this backdrop, speakers pointed to emerging good practices and opportunities, including community-centred engagement, alignment of business conduct with international standards, growing recognition of ecocide as a crime, and the global affirmation of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. Operational-level grievance mechanisms, as well as collaborative approaches among businesses, States and rights holders, and stronger coordination between human rights and environmental teams within businesses were identified as essential to addressing environmental impacts. The participants accepted the need to move from voluntary and siloed approaches towards harmonized, binding and impact-driven human rights due diligence frameworks, strengthened policy coherence, and collective action among States, businesses, civil society and affected communities to embed environmental accountability as a foundation for equitable and transformative development.

The participants in a thematic session on investigation, information and accountability in conflict-affected contexts examined the growing risks posed by armed conflict and global instability, with participants noting the close interlinkages between conflict, natural resource exploitation and economic activity. Participants highlighted that the number of armed conflicts had significantly increased in recent decades, with resource-rich countries facing heightened vulnerability, underscoring the need for heightened human rights due diligence by businesses operating in such environments. Panellists emphasized the central challenge of access to reliable and decision-useful information in contexts characterized by disinformation, restricted transparency and limited civic space and stressed that heightened human rights due diligence must be adapted to guide corporate conduct before, during and after conflict. Panellists discussed good practices and emerging strategies, including the role of technology, whistle-blower protections and multi-stakeholder collaboration in holding businesses accountable for abuses. Participants underscored the importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation, including engagement with civil society, trade unions, journalists and local actors, to counter disinformation, support evidence-based risk assessment and strengthen accountability. The discussion addressed persistent barriers to corporate accountability, including jurisdictional obstacles, complex corporate structures and the unequal burden borne by victims in accessing justice, as well as the increasing use of legal harassment against human rights defenders. Participants also highlighted the role of investors in prioritizing high-risk contexts, demanding heightened human rights due diligence and avoiding superficial or reactive approaches to conflict-related risks. While acknowledging emerging tools, practices and growing expectations around corporate responsibility in conflict zones, the participants identified enduring gaps, notably weak enforcement, insufficient protection for civil society actors and the lack of clear standards for investors.

In an informal dialogue session, participants emphasized that heightened human rights due diligence in conflict-affected areas must be continuous and applied throughout the life cycle of a business project and investment, rather than treated as a one-off exercise. In addition, this process should take into account risks of “greedy behaviour”, including free-riding practices that could themselves constitute human rights risks. Consensus-building with affected stakeholders was identified as a particularly important tool in conflict-affected contexts, alongside the need for a rigorous, context-specific “reality check” before project approval to prevent risks from materializing. While awareness among businesses, including investors, regarding this responsibility was increasing, speakers noted that businesses acting in bad faith must face a shift in their cost-benefit calculations to deter harmful conduct. To support effective implementation, the participants in the session highlighted the importance of dedicating in-house expertise to human rights due diligence, capable of navigating disputed narratives and managing complex information-gathering processes.

The participants in the thematic session on artificial intelligence examined how States, businesses, investors and civil society could ensure that the development, procurement and deployment of artificial intelligence systems were equitable, accountable and grounded in human rights. Building on the Working Group’s report on artificial intelligence procurement and deployment,⁷ the participants emphasized public procurement as a critical but underutilized artificial intelligence governance mechanism, particularly given the growing use of artificial intelligence in essential public services that disproportionately affected individuals and groups at risk of discrimination. Discussions highlighted that artificial intelligence systems frequently entered the public sector through opaque channels, such as framework contracts and system updates, without adequate human rights due diligence or meaningful stakeholder engagement. Panellists underscored that public procurement could shape artificial intelligence markets by embedding human rights standards, transparency requirements and accountability measures throughout the artificial intelligence life cycle. Nevertheless, there was a need for more capacity, stronger contract management and collaboration among procuring authorities. Participants reaffirmed the continued relevance of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights alongside emerging mandatory artificial intelligence legislation, noting that existing human rights, non-discrimination, privacy and transparency laws already provided important safeguards. The session also emphasized the importance of meaningful stakeholder engagement, human rights impact assessments and attention to access to remedy, particularly in the light of transparency challenges, risks of exclusion and discrimination, and accountability challenges associated with artificial intelligence systems. Private sector contributions demonstrated how businesses could operationalize human rights due diligence across the artificial intelligence life cycle through ethical principles, impact assessments, stakeholder engagement and open, collaborative approaches to artificial intelligence safety. Investors underscored the role of stewardship, transparency and escalation tools in addressing artificial intelligence-related human rights risks.

7. A/HRC/59/53. ↩

The participants in a thematic session on labour migration, which drew on the recently presented report of the Working Group on this topic,⁸ examined the heightened vulnerabilities faced by migrant workers amid shifting global labour markets, economic uncertainty and evolving regulatory expectations. Participants underscored that migrant workers were disproportionately exposed to adverse human rights impacts due to structural inequalities, precarious employment relationships and the widespread use of intermediaries. Panellists emphasized that labour rights were among the most frequently violated human rights, with recurrent concerns, including recruitment fees, wage theft, retaliation, forced labour, discrimination and limited access to effective remedy, but also illegal recruitment, trafficking in persons, bonded visa systems, weak enforcement, and the limited capacity of small and informal enterprises to implement safeguards of migrant rights. One panellist gave a personal account of his lived experience of deceptive recruitment and forced labour in the horticulture sector. The discussion highlighted the critical role of human rights due diligence in addressing these risks, stressing the need for sector-specific regulatory frameworks, migrant-specific data and indicators and responsible employment models that prioritized formal, stable work and the elimination of exploitative recruitment practices, including through the “employer pays” principle. Participants raised the need to strengthen governance, including through the establishment of dedicated institutions, international cooperation, binding regulations, data collection, preventive information campaigns and the promotion of legal migration pathways, and emphasized the central role of trade unions, civil society organizations and survivor-led approaches in enabling trust-based engagement, worker-centred monitoring and access to effective grievance mechanisms.

8. A/81/171. ↩

The informal dialogue session on ethical recruitment underscored the scale and complexity of labour migration, with participants noting that an estimated 169 million migrant workers remained exposed to systemic abuses, including excessive recruitment fees, contract substitution, forced labour, wage theft and limited access to remedy. Those risks were linked to opaque recruitment practices, informal intermediaries and fragmented regulatory oversight across origin and destination countries. The participants emphasized ethical recruitment as a core component of human rights due diligence across the migration cycle. Panellists highlighted practical measures to operationalize responsible recruitment and stressed the importance of extending responsible recruitment standards across subcontractor networks, ensuring accessible and confidential grievance mechanisms, providing effective remedies and enhancing cross-border cooperation, data transparency and coordinated action among States, businesses, investors and civil society.

Similarly, the participants in an informal dialogue session on forced labour examined persistent forced labour risks in global supply chains, underscoring that forced labour remained closely linked to informality, weak governance, corruption, poverty and restricted civic space. While human rights due diligence remained the central framework for business action, the process should be adapted where corporate leverage and remediation options were limited. Preventing and addressing forced labour required strengthened labour law enforcement, protection of civic space and workers, effective worker engagement, enhanced supply chain transparency, and sustained multi-stakeholder cooperation among States, businesses, trade unions, civil society and international organizations.

The session on building competitive, resilient businesses through human rights due diligence highlighted that effective human rights due diligence must be grounded in the lived realities of workers, Indigenous Peoples and other rights holders, particularly within complex, multi-tier supply chains. Panellists stressed that no single actor could address systemic risks alone, underscoring the need for early, sustained and multi-stakeholder engagement to overcome power imbalances and coordination challenges. Speakers emphasized a shift from compliance-driven approaches towards impact-oriented, rights holder-led models, where workers and affected communities co-created solutions and action plans to address root causes of harm. The discussion also highlighted persistent challenges, including data quality and comparability, capacity constraints for Governments and small and medium-sized enterprises, and the risk of reducing due diligence to metrics rather than lived outcomes. At the same time, participants identified emerging good practices, such as tailored support for small and medium-sized enterprises, gender-responsive procurement, sector-specific due diligence in high-risk supply chains and the responsible use of technology – including artificial intelligence – to amplify workers’ voices and improve risk identification. State interventions illustrated pathways from voluntary to mandatory due diligence through phased implementation, capacity-building and leveraging public tools such as export credit and procurement. Overall, the session reinforced that putting people first in human rights due diligence was not only a legal and ethical obligation but also a strategic investment in business resilience, competitiveness and trust in an increasingly fragile and interconnected global economy.

The informal dialogue session on multi-stakeholder engagement underscored the need for proactive, early-stage approaches to stakeholder and rights holder involvement, rather than reactive measures. Speakers emphasized the importance of integrating engagement mechanisms at the outset of projects and adopting risk-based human rights due diligence that prioritized the most vulnerable rights holders. Testimonies from rights holders in Latin America and East Africa revealed ongoing concerns about representation, honesty and transparency from businesses. Good practices of engagement with rights holders were exchanged. The discussion highlighted that, while civil society pressure could drive progress, durable outcomes required continuous transparency, oversight and long-term engagement. Participants called for a shift towards proactive, inclusive processes that integrated stakeholder perspectives into decision-making and addressed underlying power imbalances.

The session on human rights due diligence in small and medium-sized enterprises highlighted both the structural constraints that such enterprises faced and emerging practices aimed at reducing the burden of implementation while strengthening impact. Speakers emphasized that small and medium-sized enterprises, which constituted the largest share of global value chains, often delayed action due to limited resources, lack of visibility beyond tier 1 suppliers, and the perception of human rights compliance as a cost rather than a source of value. The discussion underscored that technology, including artificial intelligence-based supply chain analytics and big data, could assist with human rights due diligence in complex supply chains, accelerate risk identification and support human judgment by mapping supply chains, identifying hidden risks, enhancing visibility beyond direct suppliers and linking human rights, climate and environmental risks, while requiring cautious use, given current limitations, including the lack of stakeholder engagement, and not serving as a stand-alone solution. Participants stressed the importance of collaborative and cost-sharing models, whereby lead firms, traders and other actors pooled resources to generate high-quality data and remove the financial burden from small and medium-sized enterprises. Good practices included shared digital platforms, sectoral and regional collaborations, the integration of human rights into existing procurement systems, and a focus on measuring preventive practices rather than solely outcomes. At the same time, persistent gaps were identified, including low maturity in risk assessment, reliance on informal labour, difficulties in capturing workers’ voices, and challenges operating in high-risk or politically sensitive contexts. The participants in the session concluded that advancing human rights due diligence for small and medium-sized enterprises required moving beyond “command-and-control” and checkbox approaches towards harmonized, scalable and collaborative frameworks that embedded human rights into business value, integrated environmental and climate considerations, and distributed responsibility fairly across value chains, with strong support from States, large enterprises and collective action initiatives.

In a thematic session on investors, the participants examined the evolving role of investors in promoting human rights due diligence and access to remedy across global supply chains, particularly in high-risk contexts. The discussion emphasized that investors, as leverage points in business operations, had both responsibilities and opportunities to prevent, mitigate and remediate harms, consistent with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Mandatory human rights due diligence laws were reshaping investor behaviour by improving access to human rights risk information. National contact points had clarified complex issues for investors and had mediated agreements, including between institutional investors and trade unions. Speakers emphasized that human rights due diligence must be contextualized to make sure that underreported risks, including to Indigenous Peoples, were duly reflected. Participants also highlighted that investors must evaluate risks not only within investee businesses but also across supply chains and affected communities. Preventive contractual measures and direct engagement, including free, prior and informed consent, were recommended as essential tools. Remedy was also presented as one of the most neglected areas. Speakers underscored that investors should assess whether businesses had systems to identify human rights risks, handle complaints effectively, prevent retaliation and engage rights holders. Good practices discussed included multi-format grievance channels, trained and independent complaint teams, systematic tracking of complaints and transparent public commitments. Independent investor grievance mechanisms, contingency funds to relieve affected communities of remediation burdens, and responsible exit strategies, including post-exit grievance facilitation and public disclosure to prevent further harm, were recommended by participants. The panel concluded that coordinated action by investors, businesses and States was essential to prevent harm, strengthen remedy systems and uphold human rights across global business operations.

The participants in the informal dialogue session on development finance institutions examined persistent challenges while identifying opportunities to strengthen accountability, access to remedy and institutional practice in development finance investments. Independent complaint mechanisms of several development finance institutions were presented as key tools to address accountability gaps and to provide pathways to remedy for individuals, communities and workers affected by financed projects, operating independently of the banks themselves. Participants identified insufficient information disclosure, retaliation risks, accountability loopholes and limited institutional capacity as some of the most significant challenges in development finance contexts. The discussion highlighted the need for stronger human rights due diligence by development finance institutions, as well as more consistent use of financial leverage to prevent harm and to ensure effective access to remedy.

The session on access to remedy and certification and verification systems highlighted the role of States, businesses and certification and verifications systems, with participants identifying the potential and the clear limitations in advancing accountability for human rights harms. Participants made clear that, while certification and audit schemes such as the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance and Forest Stewardship Council could support business respect for human rights, raise awareness, improve transparency and help to identify harms requiring remediation, they could not substitute for State regulation, judicial and non-judicial remedies or businesses’ own responsibility to remediate for human rights impacts that they had caused or to which they had contributed. The discussion underscored that corrective action plans were not remedies in themselves and that meaningful remediation required timeliness, sustained engagement and collective action involving rights holders. Participants stressed persistent challenges in access to effective remedies, in particular by businesses that were certified, including power imbalances, weak engagement of rights holders, particularly Indigenous Peoples and communities in remote areas, limited access to independent and culturally appropriate grievance mechanisms, and the risk of technical processes obscuring lived realities on the ground. Positive developments highlighted included greater public transparency of audit findings, the emergence of dedicated grievance mechanisms within certification and verification systems, outcome-oriented remedy frameworks, community monitoring initiatives and growing collaboration between standards bodies, businesses and Governments. Overall, the session reinforced that certification and verification could facilitate access to remedy, but remedies from businesses should be embedded within robust human rights due diligence, aligned with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, complemented by strong State action, and centred on the meaningful participation and rights of affected communities. In this context, it was noted that the Working Group was working on an information note on the application of the Guiding Principles to certification schemes and auditing bodies.

The informal dialogue session on operational-level grievance mechanisms emphasized the need to place workers at the centre of the design and implementation of these mechanisms, recognizing that effective mechanisms depended on trust, respectful employer-employee relationships and awareness of power imbalances. Good practices underscored the value of participatory, context-specific grievance mechanisms tailored to individual factories or regions, combined with worker education and rights awareness. Looking ahead, the participants stressed strengthening collaboration and communication among businesses, workers and Governments and integrating grievance mechanisms with prevention strategies.

The participants in the thematic session on diversity, equity and inclusion examined how States and businesses were aligning with human rights obligations and standards on non-discrimination and equality in the context of current attempts to roll back human rights protections in the workplace and across supply chains. The discussion highlighted how the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights provided a clear framework for action, supporting inclusive business practices not only as a moral imperative, but also as a strategic economic advantage, with evidence showing that businesses with robust diversity, equity and inclusion policies demonstrated stronger market performance and resilience. Key challenges were identified, including the lack of formal protections for LGBTQI+ employees, economic vulnerability intersecting with political pushback against diversity, equity and inclusion, and the persistent underrepresentation of persons with disabilities, particularly women, due to social stigma. Corporate responses to political backlash varied, with some businesses retreating from public diversity, equity and inclusion reporting, while others maintained or adapted initiatives, showcasing different strategies and effective approaches to advance diversity, equity and inclusion regardless of the political context. Examples included creating accessible workplaces, providing tailored training and flexible schedules and embedding diversity, equity and inclusion considerations not just internally, but also across value and supply chains. States were called upon to strengthen comprehensive non-discrimination legal frameworks and enhance oversight and monitoring. Investors and market actors were identified as critical levers to reward companies that integrated diversity, equity and inclusion in their human rights policies and activities. Opportunities identified included leveraging meaningful youth and community engagement, promoting evidence-based diversity, equity and inclusion policies and supporting multi-stakeholder initiatives with the meaningful participation of rights holders.

One session was dedicated to a multi-stakeholder consultation on the two 2026 thematic reports of the Working Group, one to the Human Rights Council on the theme of “Agribusiness, food security and human rights”⁹ and the other to the General Assembly on the theme of “Corporate governance, business and human rights”.¹⁰ The discussions during the consultation enabled the Working Group to benefit from insights on how States and businesses, in relation to the topics of the reports, were or were not upholding their respective duties and responsibilities to protect and respect human rights, in line with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Panellists set out key issues to prompt interactive discussion, and they reflected on how the Guiding Principles should be upheld by States and businesses alike. The session broadened knowledge of the topics of the reports, sparked thoughts about areas for further research and consultation, explored inclusive and rights holder-led engagement relevant to the topics of the reports, highlighted tools and innovations in the relevant fields for further research, and generated actionable recommendations for inclusion in the reports.

9. A/HRC/62/36. ↩
10. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2026/call-inputs-report-corporate-governance-business-and-human-rights-81st-session. ↩

The participants in the session on Indigenous Peoples examined how to operationalize the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in practice through human rights due diligence, inclusive governance and genuine partnerships, with a view to moving beyond rhetoric. It was emphasized that a genuine transition from exploitation to empowerment of Indigenous Peoples in the context of business activities required full respect for their rights to self-determination and free, prior and informed consent. Indigenous representatives consistently stressed that Indigenous Peoples were rights holders – not just stakeholders – and that free, prior and informed consent processes must be, among other considerations, community-led, culturally appropriate and capable of resulting in a genuine “yes” or “no”. The discussion called for a shift from compliance-based approaches towards co-governance, equitable benefit-sharing, Indigenous-led monitoring, and long-term partnerships that embedded Indigenous knowledge and leadership in climate and business decision-making. While noting emerging positive developments, including renewed government commitments and evolving business policies and procedures to respect free, prior and informed consent, speakers underscored persistent structural drivers of harm – such as land-grabbing, militarization and weak accountability – and concluded that a just energy transition was only possible if Indigenous rights, leadership and access to remedy were placed at its core.

The participants in the session on human rights defenders examined their essential role in identifying, preventing and addressing business-related environmental and social harms. It was emphasized that defending human rights and protecting the environment were inseparable. Human rights defenders, including journalists, Indigenous leaders and community activists, faced significant risks, such as criminalization, intimidation, forced displacement and violence. These risks often stemmed from collusion among companies, State security forces and political actors. Despite national action plans and diplomatic support, courts and law enforcement frequently failed to provide adequate protection. The discussion also highlighted that businesses increasingly recognized the necessity of integrating protection for human rights defenders into core operations and human rights due diligence processes, including grievance mechanisms and stakeholder engagement. Participants further stressed the importance of collaboration among actors, including States, businesses, civil society and affected communities, in addressing business-related harms. Recommendations included recognizing human rights defenders as legitimate actors, ending the criminalization of human rights defenders, formally recognizing Indigenous rights, implementing mandatory human rights due diligence frameworks grounded in international norms, ensuring gender-sensitive grievance mechanisms and shifting from rhetorical commitments to structural protection and accountability. The discussion concluded with the announcement of the Working Group’s forthcoming guidance on free, prior and informed consent, which was aimed at providing practical recommendations for States, businesses and other relevant stakeholders in this critical area.

The session on gender-responsive human rights due diligence addressed the pervasive violence that business activities generated and exacerbated against women and girls. This was noted to be particularly challenging in relation to the situation of transgender women, gender-diverse and intersex persons, and all those facing intersecting forms of discrimination, including due to their age, race, ethnicity, disability or socioeconomic status. Participants discussed the need for the integration of gender considerations into all aspects of business conduct, including at each step of human rights due diligence processes, and remedial mechanisms. Key challenges included the lack of gender-responsive grievance mechanisms, particularly in small and medium-sized enterprises, and weak enforcement of international human rights standards, particularly in repressive or conflict-affected contexts. Limited ratification of the ILO Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190), corruption and weak justice systems were noted as factors further constraining State and corporate accountability. Legal gender recognition and mandatory human rights due diligence that incorporated sexual orientation and gender identity perspectives were highlighted as essential measures for preventing discrimination and gender-based violence in business activities. Examples of contractual clauses in business and trade agreements that expressly included sexual orientation and gender identity language and provisions on safe spaces for LGBTIQ+ persons to raise grievances and the collection of gender-disaggregated data were discussed as positive practices. Public institutions’ guidance and capacity-building for suppliers and equitable benefit-sharing were emphasized as a means to ensure meaningful participation and human rights protection for all.

The Forum included sessions dedicated to discussions of trends and challenges in specific regions.

The participants in the session examined the persistent gap between the growing number of policy commitments relating to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the realities on the ground, particularly amid overlapping crises affecting the continent. Speakers highlighted that, although awareness and national action plans were expanding, implementation was hampered by economic volatility, weak enforcement, informality and the systemic exclusion of discriminated groups. Issues such as child labour could not be solved by any single actor. Instead, structured partnerships between Governments, businesses, civil society and international organizations were needed, alongside regulatory clarity and investment in national systems to strengthen coherence across sectors. Perspectives from State representatives and practitioners underscored the need for stronger legal frameworks, better integration of human rights into national development planning and improved social protection systems that “followed the worker”, including workers in informal, platform-based or precarious employment. Speakers shared practical reforms, such as harmonizing labour laws, developing hazardous work frameworks, expanding child labour-free zones, simplifying human rights due diligence for small and medium-sized enterprises, and strengthening cross-border mechanisms to protect migrant and platform workers. Inclusion – particularly gender equality – was stressed as central to sustainable economic transformation. Gender-responsive budgeting, affirmative procurement, digital inclusion and care economy reforms were stressed as engines of competitiveness and growth. Violence, discrimination and the exclusion of women were said to represent massive economic losses and undermine the integration of Africa under the African Continental Free Trade Area. The discussion closed with audience interventions calling for accelerated business and human rights in Africa through coherent laws, empowered communities and accountable companies and for investment by Governments in inclusive, rights-based development systems.

The participants in the session explored the rapid expansion of the platform economy across the Asia-Pacific region, highlighting both opportunities and human rights challenges unique to the region. Panellists noted that many platform companies were local or regional rather than multinational enterprises, which shaped how they engaged with human rights and their capacity to implement the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Speakers emphasized the importance of guidance, capacity-building, and practical tools to help these businesses to meet their responsibilities while fostering responsible business practices. Platform work in the region could formalize previously informal employment, giving workers access to digital identities, financial services and social protection for the first time. That transformation offered particular benefits for marginalized groups, including women, migrant workers, older workers and those in rural areas, enabling participation in the digital economy and supporting broader social inclusion. At the same time, informality and weak grievance mechanisms remained sources of risk. Panellists stressed the need for fair working conditions, stronger social protection and systems that ensured that workers’ voices were included in company decision-making. National policies and business practices must align to provide meaningful access to remedies, protect rights and reinforce corporate accountability. Examples from across the region illustrated these efforts, including gig worker tribunals, inter-agency committees to address labour grievances and national legislation establishing minimum standards for platform work. Audience interventions highlighted the importance of collaboration among Governments, businesses and civil society to ensure that digital labour platforms promoted inclusive growth, social protection and sustainable development, while respecting the rights of all workers. Panellists concluded that progress in the region depended on coordinated action across all three pillars of the Guiding Principles.

The discussions were framed around three converging regional challenges: backtracking on European Union sustainability commitments, geopolitical pressures reshaping corporate responsibilities, and persistent rule of law weaknesses. A study was presented surveying companies across the region, revealing a paradox: businesses expressed high confidence in their human rights performance, yet evidence showed that concrete implementation of human rights due diligence remained weak. Regulatory uncertainty at the European Union level was noted as hampering effective national-level reform efforts, emphasizing that businesses often engaged only when human rights due diligence was a binding requirement. The situation of migrant workers and States’ preparedness, or lack thereof, to safeguard their rights was discussed. This included weak State oversight and other barriers, such as fear of retaliation for speaking out. Positive practices were noted, including through multi-stakeholder partnerships to strengthen human rights due diligence, including in migrant worker-related recruitment processes. Participants stressed the importance of regional exchange of positive practices and the need for leadership capable of prioritizing long-term human rights responsibility over short-term profit. It was noted that access to remedy remained weak, and shrinking civic space threatened the foundations of responsible business. It was recommended that States ensure clear and predictable regulatory environments; that businesses step up their leadership roles; that national human rights institutions and human rights defenders remained active and protected; and that claims that human rights hindered economic growth continued to be countered. The need to shift from paper-based compliance towards engagement, clarity and proactive investor responsibility was noted.

The session was focused on ensuring human rights in critical minerals extraction in Latin America and the Caribbean and highlighted that the global push for critical minerals risked reproducing long-standing patterns of traditional mining exploitation in the region unless firmly grounded in human rights. Indigenous representatives stressed that so-called “green” mining was already turning their territories into sacrifice zones, marked by water depletion, pollution, loss of livelihoods and systematic violations of the right to free, prior and informed consent. Evidence presented showed that Latin America had the highest number of human rights allegations linked to the extraction of critical minerals, with impacts concentrated on Indigenous lands, acute water scarcity, and escalating attacks and judicial harassment against human rights defenders. Speakers underscored that States often prioritized corporate interests over community rights, while businesses frequently framed consultation as a formality rather than a binding right. At the same time, examples from labour authorities and businesses illustrated that stronger inspections, water stewardship, transparency and early, genuine dialogue with communities could reduce harm when accompanied by accountability. The discussion converged on the need to move beyond mitigation towards prevention, calling for mandatory human rights due diligence, legal recognition of Indigenous land and collective property rights, protection of defenders, fair negotiations and shared prosperity, and business practices that respected free, prior and informed consent – including the right of communities not to consent – as essential conditions to ensure that the energy transition did not become a new form of extractivism.

The session focused on how States, businesses and civil society actors across the Middle East and North Africa were working to implement the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights amid overlapping regional crises. Speakers highlighted the pressures created by economic transitions, climate change, the just energy transition, digital transformation and persistent armed conflicts, emphasizing how they intersected to heighten human rights risks and complicate corporate responsibility. The discussion underscored that, despite those challenges, actors in the region were seeking to advance human rights due diligence, engage stakeholders more systematically and develop or refine national action plans to strengthen responsible business conduct. Panellists also presented concrete examples from sectors operating in high-risk or conflict-affected environments to demonstrate practical approaches for embedding human rights into business operations. A significant portion of the discussion addressed the situation of migrant workers, who made up a substantial share of the workforce in the Middle East and North Africa, drawing on recent research and the Working Group’s findings from the report on labour migration, business and human rights.¹¹ The session emphasized the importance of remedy mechanisms, collaborative governance, and the growing role of youth in shaping future responsible business practices, particularly through awareness-raising and advocacy.

11. A/80/171. ↩

The session was focused on addressing implementation gaps in mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence in Western European and Other States. Participants considered the European Commission’s omnibus simplification package, introduced less than a year after the adoption of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive of the European Union in 2024, and its proposal for significant reforms to “simplify” human rights due diligence requirements. It was noted that this retreat from regulatory rigour exemplified a broader trend in that, despite decades of application of international standards and the development of enforceable legislation on human rights and environmental due diligence, deregulation pressures were creating an environment where compliance expectations were being diluted. The participants reflected on the fact that this dynamic created a paradox, as, while existing mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence laws represented significant regulatory progress, systemic implementation challenges undermined their transformative potential and threatened to establish a regulatory benchmark that could lead emerging legislation to replicate those shortcomings. The speakers addressed implementation challenges across two levels: failures in the remedy and enforcement architecture; and deficiencies in the performance of human rights and environmental due diligence. They observed that rights holders struggled to access meaningful justice through existing channels and to navigate complex jurisdictional tensions around cross-border accountability and that the quality and integrity of human rights and environmental due diligence processes themselves, which should identify and prevent harm in the first place, were being compromised by outsourcing practices that prioritized competitive market pressures over rigorous risk assessment. The participants examined systemic barriers and the impact of regulatory retreat on access to justice by rights holders, analysed the interconnected nature of implementation challenges and identified principles for effective oversight and enforcement in the region.

The key messages emerging from the discussions include those set out below.

Current interlocking crises and profound transformations are placing unprecedented strain on the protection and realization of human rights. In this context, while both States and businesses are increasingly acknowledging their responsibilities to protect and respect these rights, sustained political will, principled leadership and a shared sense of purpose are urgently needed to overcome the persistent challenges and barriers that remain.

State action to strengthen mandatory human rights due diligence and ensure access to effective remedy for victims remains critical, including through renewed and strengthened commitment to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Businesses, which have an independent responsibility to respect human rights, must be more proactive in integrating the Guiding Principles across their value chains and in their corporate policies, procurement standards and operational-level grievance mechanisms. States should ensure conditions that encourage, rather than discourage, their efforts. At the same time, businesses ought to support, and not weaken, State initiatives to achieve the “smart mix” of measures.

Preventing harm to civilian populations in conflict-affected situations requires strengthened accountability frameworks, reliable and timely information flows, and sustained collaboration among States, businesses, investors and civil society. This includes the continuous conduct of heightened human rights due diligence, meaningful engagement with affected rights holders and the proactive use of leverage by investors and other actors to prevent contributing to adverse human rights impacts.

Labour migration governance would benefit from stronger coherence with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, including in relation to fair recruitment, oversight of intermediaries, and remedy. Negative public narratives and the criminalization of migrants undermine protections and heighten exposure to exploitation, including abuses facilitated by corruption. Advancing rights-based migration pathways and addressing structural drivers of forced labour are essential to safeguarding workers throughout the migration cycle, especially in politically hostile environments.

A just and inclusive energy transition requires strong corporate accountability and the protection of and respect for human rights. Businesses and States must avoid replicating extractive models and ensure that the energy transition does not disadvantage communities in vulnerable situations. Aligning climate action with human rights, including respect for land, cultural and collective rights, is essential for preventing harm and building trust. The role of young people, including children and Indigenous youth, in climate action is also crucial to ensure the protection of and respect for human rights.

Artificial intelligence governance must be grounded in human rights. Artificial intelligence systems are increasingly shaping access to public services, employment, information and justice, meaning that States and businesses must ensure that the development, procurement and deployment of these systems uphold human rights, including by guaranteeing transparency and accountability. Embedding human rights due diligence across the artificial intelligence life cycle, including meaningful stakeholder engagement and effective oversight, is essential to prevent discriminatory outcomes, protect civic space and support equitable digital transformation.

Protecting individuals and groups, especially the most marginalized, who remain disproportionately exposed to wide-ranging adverse human rights impacts, such as Indigenous Peoples, communities of African descent, human rights defenders, women, LGBTI+ persons, persons with disabilities and migrant workers, requires meaningful stakeholder engagement and the strengthening of protections and measures to address intersecting forms of discrimination. States and businesses must adapt their human rights due diligence and access to remedy systems to be inclusive, culturally appropriate and gender-responsive.

With regard to access to remedy, while certification and verification systems can facilitate access to remedy, remedies from businesses should be embedded within robust human rights due diligence, aligned with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, complemented by strong State action, and centred on the meaningful participation of rights holders. States must enforce judicial and non-judicial mechanisms effectively and remove legal and practical barriers that prevent victims from seeking justice and remedies. Businesses should also develop and align their operational-level grievance mechanisms with the Guiding Principles.