The Consumer Goods Forum (CGF) — a CEO-led initiative bringing together consumer goods retailers and manufacturers — published a Best Practice Note for Business on Human Rights Defenders (May 2025). The briefing note was developed by CGF’s Forest Positive Coalition and Human Rights Coalition and was informed by select examples of business practices and stakeholder views.
Human Level’s Take:
- Human rights defenders (HRDs) are vital allies in exposing social and environmental risks in supply chains. The Consumer Goods Forum’s note shows how companies can respect their rights and embed their voices into human rights due diligence, guided by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
- This starts with developing a strong policy endorsed by company leadership and outlining the company’s commitments to respect the rights of HRDs, developed in consultation with HRDs themselves. Carrying out the policy in practice requires strong human rights due diligence that applies considerations of the specific risks faced by HRDs. Importantly, this includes consulting with defenders and experts through due diligence, while also putting in place practices for engagement that protect the physical and mental safety of HRDs
- The briefing note offers some key actions that companies can take to offer both direct and indirect support to HRDs. It highlights the value of consulting HRDs early on to ensure actions are appropriate and do not worsen the situation. Depending on the context, companies may act privately, for example through community engagement to head off community threats to defenders, offering financial or protective support, facilitating access to grievance mechanisms, or engaging directly with home and host country governments on behalf of HRDs
- Companies can also offer public support by attending trials, events or engaging in advocacy like signing open letters with peers and releasing statements. In addition, companies can create effective grievance mechanisms, including HRDs in their design, building trust, removing barriers to access, and ensuring remedies are contextually appropriate and meaningful
Some key takeaways:
- Creating a strong company policy on human rights defenders: The briefing note outlines key considerations for companies implementing policies relating to human rights defenders (HRDs), whether these are standalone policies or integrated into human rights policies, responsible sourcing policies or codes of conduct. There are a few key features that can help ensure a strong policy commitment. First, the policy is grounded in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and is endorsed by company leadership, setting a tone from the top. In addition, it recognises the important role defenders play and acknowledges that some HRDs may be more vulnerable to risks than others, like women, sexual and gender minorities, Indigenous peoples and environmental defenders. The policy should prohibit any violence, threats of intimidation of HRDs, including by third parties linked to the company. The policy commitment should also be borne out in practice by strong human rights due diligence protocols that apply to company suppliers and business partners, including stakeholder engagement, providing accessible grievance mechanisms, and taking action on risks and impacts to HRDs. While developing policies, good practice is to consult with HRDs and integrate their perspectives into the policy and implementation plan.
- Implementing the policy through HRDD: The briefing note flags four specific stages of HRDD where defenders should be considered in order to meet company policy commitments. First, when identifying stakeholders and the rights at risk, companies can integrate a “defender-sensitive” lens by considering the broader context that could support or undermine the rights of HRDs across the full value chain. Some “red flags” to look out for include shrinking civic space, the presence of conflict or authoritarian regimes, evidence of collusion or support of perpetrators by the government, a history of abuses against HRDs, and unresolved land conflicts or unclear land regulation that could drive risks. Second, engaging with HRDs —as impacted stakeholders, credible representatives or experts — throughout due diligence is essential to uncover context-specific risks. This should be done in a way that respects their rights and ensures their physical security and mental well-being, in recognition of the heightened risks they might face during engagement. Third, when prioritising salient issues, many risks to HRDs are high-priority because the nature of the risk tends to be severe in scale and difficult to remediate. In addition, the briefing note highlights that because HRDs play an essential role in safeguarding the rights of others, the scope of the impact to defenders often extends beyond the defenders themselves, making this a high-priority issue.
- Acting to address negative impacts to HRDs: The briefing note presents possible actions that companies could take to address risks and impacts to HRDs. As a starting place, it recommends that companies first consult with HRDs or experts to ensure any actions are helpful and that they do not escalate the situation on the ground. Companies can take action privately or publicly, depending on the context. For example, they could directly engage and support HRDs privately by engaging with the community to reduce community threats to defenders; provide financial support or other types of assistance like physical protection measures and access to grievance mechanisms; identify partners that could also provide support or assistance; or provide support to file complaints. Publicly, they could demonstrate support by attending trials or public events supporting HRDs. Countries can also engage in advocacy with their home and host country governments, whether privately or publicly (e.g., via statements, open letters, collective advocacy through industry groups, etc.). In addition, they can develop grievance mechanisms and ensure remedy to impacted HRDs, including them in the process of designing the mechanisms. This often requires trust-building with HRDs, removing any barriers to access (like language, literacy, costs, retaliation risks), and developing safe communication channels. Remedies should be both meaningful and appropriate for the context.
