Swedwatch, the European Coalition for Corporate Justice (ECCJ) and the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) published findings from a global survey of 93 organisations across 40 countries working on business and human rights.
Human Level’s Take:
- Funding for business and human rights work is shrinking. Surveyed organisations reported an average budget cut of 40% between 2024 and 2026, with deeper cuts among respondents in the Global South. When organisations lose staff and scale back programmes, what else goes with them? Research and documentation, local knowledge, and relationships with workers and communities can all become harder to sustain.
- That matters for human rights due diligence (HRDD). Civil society organisations, workers and affected communities can bring information about human rights and environmental impacts into view across operations and value chains, including perspectives that may not otherwise reach companies and investors. Reduced capacity therefore affects the wider information landscape on which HRDD relies.
- So where will information about impacts come from? The report puts declining civil society capacity alongside continued growth in commercial social auditing and ESG services. It also points to research on where audits can miss severe harms and where human rights ratings rely heavily on company disclosures.
- At the same time, the funding landscape is shifting. Organisations are looking beyond traditional human rights funding towards climate and environmental foundations, corporate foundations, earned income and community-based sources. The authors also point to intersections with areas such as climate, health and education as potential routes for broadening the funding base.
- So what might help sustain the work? The report puts flexible, multi-year funding firmly on the table, alongside diversification, alternative financing models and support for organisations trying to reach new funders. For practitioners, there is a broader point to carry forward: effective due diligence depends not only on the processes companies put in place, but also on the wider ecosystem of people and organisations able to surface, document and communicate impacts.
Some Key takeaways:
- Funding cuts are shrinking the capacity of organisations working on business and human rights: Conducted between April and May 2026, the survey set out to understand how funding cuts are affecting organisations working at the nexus of human rights, the environment and business, and how the field is responding. It received responses from 93 organisations across 40 countries, including national and international NGOs, community-based organisations, networks and coalitions, with 57% of respondents based in the Global South and 43% in the Global North. The authors describe the findings as a snapshot rather than a comprehensive picture of the field. Across respondents, organisations reported losing an average of 40% of their budgets between 2024 and 2026, with two-thirds reducing programme activities, travel and/or staff. Nearly one-third anticipate significant further reductions in staff and activities, while 13% expect to close if funding does not improve. These pressures were more pronounced among Global South respondents, which reported average cuts of 49%, compared with 28% in the Global North, and a higher anticipated risk of closure. Across the 87 civil society organisations surveyed, reported staff losses total more than 450 full-time equivalent positions, including positions already lost and expected future cuts. Swedwatch notes that staff losses can also mean losing relationships with workers and communities built through individual staff members, which may take years to rebuild even if funding recovers.
- The scale and impact of funding cuts vary across the field: The survey shows variation across regions, organisation types and areas of work. Global South respondents reported deeper average budget cuts than those in the Global North, while community-based organisations reported the largest average reductions by organisation type, at 66%, followed by networks and coalitions at 50%. By thematic area, somewhat larger average cuts were reported among organisations working on digital rights, human rights defenders and civic freedoms, and natural resource and land rights, although respondents could work across multiple themes. Advocacy, capacity building and training, and research and documentation were the activities most frequently reported as affected. The survey also points to changes in the type and duration of funding available: 48% of reported cuts affected core or flexible funding, while 72% of respondents reported shorter average grant periods. Again, these trends were more pronounced among Global South respondents, where 56% of cuts affected flexible funding, compared with 37% in the Global North, and 83% reported shorter grant periods, compared with 58% in the Global North.
- Organisations are adapting their funding strategies to a more constrained operating environment: Funding cuts are occurring alongside other pressures on civil society: 63% of respondents reported experiencing at least one physical, legal or narrative attack, rising to 72% among organisations in the Global South. Reported experiences included threats against staff, physical violence, smear campaigns, digital attacks and strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). Global South respondents also reported deeper funding cuts and fewer flexible resources alongside higher levels of attacks. As organisations look for new sources of funding, respondents are primarily targeting climate and environmental foundations alongside remaining human rights funders, while one in five reported exploring earned income and a smaller number local or community donations. Priorities differ across regions: 34% of Global South respondents said they were prioritising corporate foundations, compared with 18% in the Global North, while government donors were prioritised by 40% of Global North respondents and 11% in the Global South. Climate and environmental funders were also the most frequently reported source of successful new fundraising, cited by 17 organisations, although 45 respondents either reported no fundraising success or did not answer. Drawing on these findings, the authors identify greater engagement with funders in adjacent areas such as climate, public health and education, alternative financing models, and increased flexible and multi-year funding as areas for further attention. They also call for financial and technical support for organisations seeking to diversify, alongside field-level investment in developing and sharing new funding approaches.
