Between the 4-5 February, the Business and Human Rights Lawyers Association (BHRLA) held a two-day conference on ‘Navigating Change: Shifting Legal Expectations for Corporate Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence and the Role of Commercial Counsel.’
The conference brought together lawyers and practitioners from different countries and backgrounds to discuss the impacts of the EU Omnibus, CSDDD, AI, climate change, FPIC, and others in the business and human rights practice.
See below a snapshot of key takeaways from the sessions, and our take on them.
Human Level’s Take:
🔍 Omnibus Proposal: Still Unclear, but Optimism Remains
Speakers acknowledged the lack of clarity around the Omnibus Proposal, but there is optimism given the strong global momentum behind due diligence laws. More countries continue to pass similar regulations, reinforcing the shift towards mandatory corporate accountability.
🌍 A Shifting Landscape: Businesses Must Be Ready
Geopolitical uncertainty, changing regulations, and complex litigation trends mean companies must prepare for the unexpected. At the same time, businesses need to develop meaningful human rights due diligence (HRDD) approaches that are robust, effective, and withstand scrutiny.
🤝 Breaking Silos: A Cross-Functional Approach
A key takeaway was the need for companies to integrate human rights, environmental, and risk management expertise—rather than keeping them in separate silos. A proactive, aligned approach will drive better outcomes.
📈 HRDD as a Driver of Business Resilience
When implemented in line with the UN Guiding Principles and OECD MNE Guidelines, HRDD strengthens business resilience. Benefits include:
✅ Stronger risk management
✅ Meeting investor and customer expectations
✅ Positive ESG ratings
✅ Reduced legal liabilities
✅ Ability to navigate import bans and litigation risks
Increasingly, legal advisors see HRDD not just as a compliance issue but as a strategic business necessity.
⚖️ Beyond the EU: A Growing Web of HRDD Laws
HRDD is being reinforced by laws worldwide, not just the EU’s CSRD and CSDDD. Key regulations shaping corporate due diligence include:
🇺🇸 US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act
🇫🇷 French Duty of Vigilance Law
🇩🇪 German Supply Chain Act
🇪🇺 EU Forced Labour Regulation, Battery Passport, AI Act
Businesses are calling for greater legal certainty and regulatory coherence across the US, UK, and EU—while demands for a level playing field continue to grow.
🛠️ HRDD: Expanding Beyond Sustainability Teams
Due diligence is no longer just for human rights, compliance, or sustainability teams. Companies are embedding it across functions, with lawyers, auditors, procurement specialists, and risk professionals all playing key roles in identifying and managing risks.
🌱🤖 AI & Climate: Emerging Human Rights Risks
AI and climate change are becoming major HRDD focus areas. Fast-evolving regulations mean businesses must find ways to assess and mitigate AI and environmental human rights risks. Companies must also navigate potential tensions between rights—such as the right to life, health, decent work, and a clean and healthy environment.
Key points from the sessions:
During the next ten years, expect the unexpected. Experts expect business and human rights to stay in the political and legislative agenda in coming years, as different countries and groups like the US, BRICs and the EU continue to approach legislation from differing angles. In this geopolitical context, we can expect to see discussions emerge around the tensions between different rights: life, health, decent work and development will be in tension as the world grapples with climate change, inequality and increasing automation and adoption of AI. Cross-functional collaboration, robust governance, and stakeholder engagement will define the next decade of responsible business conduct.
Import bans as drivers of due diligence: Import bans are being seen as a blunt but effective tool moving companies around the globe to track their value chains, implement due diligence efforts and take action to mitigate and remedy forced labour cases. Human rights lawyers and other human rights professionals have a role in shaping their implementation, ensuring they lead to the development of meaningful due diligence over crisis-management approaches, which also increases companies’ capacity to comply. Multidisciplinary teams and stakeholder engagement—with NGOs and experts, for example—have proven to be effective in driving those meaningful approaches.
The redefinition of risk management: In-house lawyers are seeing a fundamental shift in risk management for companies, as teams used to focusing on risks to the business integrate the assessment and management of risks on people or the environment. This shift has brought up some fundamental challenges for companies: the need to get more comfortable with a margin of uncertainty about the severity and likelihood of the risks, the need to understand how risks evolve and interconnect, and the need to prepare to remedy certain missed or unmitigated risks.
Transposition of CSDDD and CSRD: Experts described how various countries are in different stages of transposing the CSDDD and CSRD. For example, the Netherlands has put forward a legislative proposal, while France and Germany have slowed their own transposition process due to the political climate.Transposition of laws into national frameworks can resolve ambiguities, but the process will require careful consideration of how to implement principles laid out in the UNGPs. Lawyers will play a key role in helping businesses understand and implement these new requirements effectively.
The “Brussels” effect: Business and human rights regulation—be it import bans, disclosure requirements or due diligence expectations—is imposing extraterritorial obligations on companies that offer new practical challenges for lawyers and legal teams. Companies in the US, Asia, Latin America and other regions need guidance to implement due diligence, both because they are directly in scope of the laws or partners in global value chains. Advice that is grounded on the practical implementation of the UNGPs and OECD MNE Guidelines—as the backbone of most regulatory changes—will be the most meaningful.
Due diligence in conflict-affected areas: Experts recommend that companies consider international humanitarian and criminal law when conducting business and due diligence in conflict affected regions. And, where risks are heightened, so should be the due diligence. The use of private or private and public security services, in particular are a key potential source for human rights risks, significantly increasing the likelihood of human rights impacts happening. The Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights offer specific and highly relevant guidance.
The UNGPs as the backbone of sustainability due diligence laws and regulations:Lawyers and practitioners agreed that a risk-based approach to implementing the CSDDD should remain central, once and if the law comes into effect. Successful compliance will be grounded in good practice and the UNGPs, acknowledging that the laws do not exist in isolation but interact with broader business practices. And, even before it comes into effect and is transposed, the CSDDD could even begin to be used by judges as an interpretive tool to assist the implementation and interpretation of the French vigilance law. With the UNGPs as a backbone, the CSDDD could also streamline the implementation of mandatory due diligence requirements significantly, providing more clarity and guidance for companies.
AI’s Expanding Role and the Future of Human Rights Compliance: The evolving intersection of AI, tech, and the CSDDD presents significant legal and compliance challenges. AI compliance must be fully integrated into corporate ESG and sustainability strategies. Companies should align their CSDDD obligations with AI regulations to ensure consistency and avoid legal conflicts. Businesses must adopt a holistic approach to AI governance and human rights due diligence while staying ahead of regulatory developments to ensure ethical AI deployment and long-term compliance.
Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC): Balancing Sovereignty and Indigenous Self-Determination: A recurring theme in the discussion was the tension between state sovereignty and indigenous self-determination, particularly in relation to natural resource extraction and large-scale development projects. While governments assert control over national resources, indigenous communities demand recognition of their rights and meaningful participation in decision-making. Striking a balance between these competing interests remains a complex legal and policy challenge.
Best Practices for Engaging Indigenous Communities: To navigate FPIC effectively, companies and policymakers should adopt key best practices. First, it is essential to work with public bodies, collaborating with government agencies to ensure that FPIC is conducted in a legally compliant and transparent manner. Second, involving anthropologists in the process can be crucial, as cultural experts help assess whether compensation measures and project designs align with indigenous traditions and values. Finally, it’s important to prioritise early consultation, establishing dialogue with indigenous communities early in the project planning phase. This allows for necessary adjustments and helps foster trust, reducing the risk of conflicts and legal disputes later on.
Human rights and environmental due diligence: Under the UNGPs and CSDDD, HRDD must account for adverse impacts caused by environmental harms, reinforcing the need for an integrated approach. The UN General Assembly’s recognition of the right to a clean and healthy environment further underscores this connection. Companies are encouraged to break down silos between human rights and environmental teams and leverage guidance such as the UNDP’s ‘Practical Tool for Business on HRDD+E’ to adopt a more holistic, environmentally informed HRDD process. This not only enhances risk mitigation but also drives more effective and sustainable corporate actions.
HRDD in the financial sector: Financial institutions, spanning asset management, banking, insurance, and investment services, have been developing tailored HRDD approaches. Beyond their own operations, they also have an important level of leverage to influence other companies and actors through the deployment of financial products, investment decisions, and client engagement. Still, many financial actors struggle to connect ESG frameworks with human rights standards, often reducing human rights to a subset of the "S" in ESG. Evolving regulations like the CSRD, CSDD and risk rating agencies and collaborative initiatives like UNPRI are leading a change, pushing institutions to enhance data transparency, stakeholder engagement, and accountability.
Dispute resolution is shaping human rights and environmental expectations: Judicial decisions are increasingly shaping corporate human rights expectations in the US, Europe and the UK. In the Netherlands, for example, courts have referenced the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines in climate and duty of care litigations - integrating international frameworks to national legal expectations. In France, specialised chambers now handle Duty of Vigilance cases and more substantial decisions are expected to come in future months - shaping the contents of the law. Across Europe, a number of market-share liability cases have been filed for climate change harms (still not resolved). And, in the UK, a rise in parent company liability claims for supervision over subsidiaries have led to "greenhushing" reactions, with companies fearing that public human rights or environmental commitments may increase liability risks. The CSDDD is expected to add complexity to the current landscape, but can also provide needed guidance and legal certainty for judiciaries and companies alike.
