The special issue brings together diverse academic and practitioner perspectives to explore the legal and governance aspects of implementing a just transition in practice. Recent studies have highlighted how efforts to advance clean energy transition programs in energy and extractive sectors have been increasingly linked to social exclusions, greenwashing, rising energy poverty levels and constraints to access to land and other resources in already vulnerable communities. While the need for a just transition is clear, an interdisciplinary and multijurisdictional examination of the practical challenges and gaps in the design and implementation of just transition programs has remained sparse. This special issue seeks to fill this gap in the existing literature. Through thematic and geographical case studies, the contributions herein critically examine the social, environmental and human rights implications of the clean energy transition, illuminating what a just transition should entail and how it can be realized in diverse contexts.

This article builds on the recommendations of the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights to argue for the integration of access-to-remedy clauses into international investment agreements (IIAs). It contends that international investment law (IIL) exhibits imperialist tendencies, privileging corporate interests while neglecting rightsholders and thereby entrenching systemic injustice. Using the framework of legal imperialism, the article highlights how existing investment regimes create structural imbalances that deny victims’ meaningful redress. Moving beyond proposals limited to procedural reform within IIL, it advances a normative case for incorporating remedy clauses into IIAs, particularly to enable rightsholders to pursue claims in host states where harms occur. Drawing on examples from the Global South, it identifies persistent barriers such as jurisdictional hurdles and enforcement gaps. The article’s contribution lies in reframing IIAs not merely as instruments of investor protection but as potential vehicles for systemic correction, capable of moving transnational law towards equitable remedies.

African countries have increasingly emphasized adopting lower carbon, more efficient and environmentally responsible energy systems. Despite these efforts, little progress has been made in addressing the adverse human rights impacts of energy transition programs and projects, and the responsibilities of extractive sector corporations and operators. Existing legal and institutional frameworks supporting human rights face hindrances in adapting to local contexts to pursue clean energy transition and energy justice. Through the lens of community engagement, gender equality and other rights-based approaches, this article argues that socially excluding vulnerable groups in accessing energy markets is primarily a function of consolidating energy delivery in a way that navigates current discrimination and responds to the central roles played by different actors. The article explores how energy is produced, extracted, distributed and shared to help outline a future agenda for shaping discussions on just transitions in Africa, emphasizing the prioritization of fairness in these efforts.

This article examines the concept of just energy transition in the context of Africa. It explores two key imperatives: (1) social inclusion and (2) an environmental rights-based approach to promote just energy transitions within African countries. The article looks at social inclusion from the perspective of local communities that host energy infrastructures, highlighting potential injustices and negative impacts that may arise from the energy transition. It further argues that social inclusion and environmental rights-based approaches can be useful tools for achieving just energy transitions in Africa. The article also analyses strategies that underpin social inclusion and environmental rights-based approaches within the governance and legal frameworks for energy transition projects in Africa, including empowering local communities to ensure the transition aligns with their socio-economic standing. The article suggests that adopting socially inclusive and environmental rights-based imperatives are significant steps towards overcoming and addressing injustices in energy transition projects in Africa.

This article explores digital colonialism in Africa, focusing on how Big Tech and local intermediaries perpetuate data exploitation, infrastructure dependency and algorithmic bias. Applying a Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) lens, it draws parallels between historical colonialism and the modern digital economy, highlighting persistent power imbalances in data control and tech sovereignty. Multinational firms from the Global North extract and monetise African data with little benefit to local communities, reinforcing dependency. Local actors (governments, tech elites and influencers) often enable this through policy gaps and cultural alignment with Western platforms. The article examines the impact on data sovereignty, human rights and economic autonomy, including risks of surveillance and silencing local voices. It calls for policy reforms, investment in African tech ecosystems, digital literacy and robust regional regulation. Ultimately, it advocates for digital justice and self-governance to reclaim Africa’s digital future.

This article explores a feminist approach to energy justice. In business and human rights to date, there has been little attention to the gendered dynamics in energy transition, mirroring the lack of attention to the rights of women and girls within broader energy and energy transition discourses. Without this attention, there is a risk that energy transition efforts maintain, increase, or create new gendered inequalities, rather than diminish them. With a focus on the distributional, recognitional and procedural dimensions of energy systems, the concept of energy justice holds much potential for the field of business and human rights. Taking women’s participation in energy transition policy-making in Sub-Saharan Africa as a concrete example, we argue that a feminist approach to energy justice could be one way of operationalizing a more gender-transformative energy transition.

This article examines how concentrated corporate power in the technology sector reshapes repression and human rights harm, arguing that an integrated Business and Human Rights (BHR) and Transitional Justice (TJ) approach is needed. It identifies three persistent gaps in BHR practice—regulatory fragmentation, limited access to remedy and Global North dominance—and demonstrates how TJ principles, particularly victim-centred participation, Global South leadership and transformative reparations, can address these challenges. Drawing on Latin American experiences with truth-seeking, reparations and corporate accountability, the article develops a hybrid BHR–TJ framework designed to confront power asymmetries, strengthen remedies and embed guarantees of non-repetition in global governance. The argument positions this integration as a forward-looking response to the structural harms of the digital economy, offering tools to move beyond proceduralism towards systemic corporate accountability. By combining BHR’s regulatory tools with TJ’s participatory and transformative approaches, the article contributes a novel accountability model for the digital era.

Legal waivers embedded in corporate settlement agreements are commonly framed as neutral devices of dispute resolution. They promise finality, prevent double recovery and manage litigation risk. Yet in practice, waivers function as structural tools of accountability avoidance. This article examines the use of legal waivers within operational-level grievance mechanisms, focusing on three dimensions: the UNGPs’ procedural formalism, the cost dynamics of corporate settlements, and the opacity created by confidentiality provisions. It argues that the UNGPs’ emphasis on process legitimacy neglects the substantive consequences of waivers, that cost volatility incentivises their routine use, and that confidentiality provisions entrench information asymmetry while obstructing judicial oversight. The article concludes by advancing a hybrid regulatory model which prohibits blanket confidentiality of terms governing settlement agreements and advocates for greater transparency through a differentiated disclosure regime and increased judicial scrutiny by domestic courts.

The transition to renewable energy models to tackle environmental degradation and climate change is one of the most important topics on the international agenda. The energy transition requires a system that is decentralised and democratic, depending more on local energy ownership and the genuine participation of the affected stakeholders. Although different states face various economic and cultural challenges, a common challenge is making the transition as inclusive and equitable as possible so that everyone can benefit equally. The article focuses on South Africa, acknowledging its special place among the Global South countries due to its history and the dependency of its economy on coal. Taking the South African experiences as an example, this article aims to show how the energy transition processes can be more inclusive and just, allowing the affected parties to participate at all levels of the just transition processes and making their voices heard.

The Paris Agreement’s commitment to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 has resulted in an uptick in environmental laws and regulations. However, such state conduct could implicate other legal obligations and norms, including international investment law and international human rights law. The conversation about human rights, net-zero and investment treaties, including arbitration cases and arbitral awards under the treaties, is in its relative infancy. This article examines how investment treaties are equipped to reconcile relevant norms with a particular focus on corporate codes and policies that pronounce broad commitments to protecting human rights and the environment. It establishes certain principles to guide parties and arbitral tribunals as to the codes while recognizing the inevitable challenges they will face.

The global arms trade stands at the crossroads of security, business and human rights. While historically dominated by security narratives, increasing recognition of the arms industry’s business functions has led to calls for greater corporate accountability for the adverse human rights impacts of arms production and transfers. Business and Human Rights (BHR) provides innovative approaches for addressing regulatory and conceptual gaps in arms trade governance, and, in particular, offers two key paths forward for bringing coherency to arms trade governance and recalibrating the balance between security and business interests and human rights protection. First, as a field of practice, BHR can be utilised to develop comprehensive and coordinated due diligence that bridges silos between human rights, corruption, diversion and lack of transparency, to overcome regulatory fragmentation. Second, as a discourse, BHR introduces a conceptual foundation for reframing the status of human rights in arms trade governance and impelling corporate leadership to elevate human rights protection.

The International Seabed Authority is under pressure from some states and companies to adopt the regulations that would allow deep seabed mining (DSM) to commence. While presented by its supporters as necessary to procure the minerals and metals needed for energy transition, DSM presents serious risks for the marine environments and human rights whose extent is still insufficiently understood. This article focuses on whether, should DSM be allowed in the short term, the current regulatory regime would suffice to ensure that the corporations leading this activity carry out effective assessment, prevention and mitigation of environmental impacts. In order to answer this question, it explores contractor obligations as they emerge from the current version of the ‘Mining Code’. In light of persisting scientific uncertainty and the high-risk profile of DSM activities, this article contends that the current version of the regulations does not devise sufficiently stringent due diligence obligations.

External experts play a crucial role in implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, advising businesses on how to identify, prevent and mitigate risks. Yet their responsibility remains underexplored in relation to judicial remedy. This article addresses this gap by investigating the involvement of external experts in strategic litigation concerning alleged corporate human rights harms. While such litigation primarily seeks remediation and societal change, it also reveals overlooked actors within legal processes. Using the concept of ‘visibilisation’, this study examines three landmark cases to explore how courts understand experts’ legal subjectivity. Findings suggest that this subjectivity encompasses both an evidentiary and functional role in corporate processes, raising important questions regarding accountability. By highlighting their influence on the corporate responsibility to respect human rights and human rights due diligence (HRDD), the article advances understanding of expert responsibility and considers its future in the emerging era of mandatory HRDD.

Strategic litigation has emerged as a prominent tool in the business and human rights (BHR) field, offering a pathway to promote corporate accountability, test innovative legal arguments and push for systemic change. While often framed as private tort actions, such litigation frequently aims to shape broader norms beyond individual remedies. This article explores how strategic litigation contributes to the evolution of corporate responsibility to respect human rights by analysing two case studies: supply chain liability claims in English courts and corporate climate litigation in the Netherlands. Drawing on these examples, the article argues that, despite its limitations, strategic BHR litigation plays an important role in translating soft law standards, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, into enforceable legal duties.

This article explores the responsibility of wind energy developers for the rights of Indigenous Peoples whose lands are affected by wind energy projects. Applying a rights-based approach and drawing on three landmark court rulings involving the struggle of Indigenous communities against the development of wind energy projects, the analysis explores the insights provided by the cases for clarifying the responsibility of business actors involved in developing such projects. It examines how Indigenous Peoples’ rights are frequently marginalized or overlooked in the planning and siting of wind energy projects and the need to respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples throughout a project in order to attain a transition that is just. Based on the analysis, we argue for a rights-based approach as the theoretical framework and analytical tool to advance justice in the green transition and a means to articulate the responsibilities of corporate actors within that context.

This article examines the evolving landscape of accounting, distinguishing between mainstream practices and critical developments that challenge conventional notions of accounting and accountability. By engaging with perspectives that reimagine accounting’s role, the paper highlights how rights intersect with accounting practices and how accounting, in turn, shapes rights. While financial and non-financial disclosures can expose human rights abuses, concerns persist over ‘accountability-washing’ and the dominance of economic interests. The reluctance of standard-setting bodies, such as the International Sustainability Standards Board, to integrate human rights underscores the political and institutional barriers to change. The article concludes by exploring future research directions through which business and human rights scholars and critical accounting researchers can mutually benefit from each other’s insights.

This article examines the intersection between forced labour, supply chain risks and environmental, social and governance concerns that pose a threat to the ‘Just Transition’. It addresses how states, businesses and other stakeholders drive or fail Just Transitions and why. Through an application of a ‘policy currents framework’ to the case study of solar panel supply chains originating in China, we analyse states, international organisations and civil society organisations’ framing of modern slavery issues in the context of the ‘Just Transition’. We focus on the framing of challenges and solutions to the nexus of forced labour and climate change. We draw attention to the fact decarbonisation risks are being achieved at the cost of labour rights abuses within supply chains, question whether the concept of renewable sources is ‘Just’ and provide a series of recommendations for stakeholders.

The scramble to extract critical energy transition minerals creates risk of widespread negative human rights impacts. A just transition in the extraction of critical minerals must involve deep examination of the mine-community interface to gain a better understanding of the drivers of successful engagement between mining companies and communities. Drawing on fieldwork in South America’s lithium triangle, this paper finds that the nature of the corporate-community relationship is increasingly key to enabling a just transition whereby communities participate in the benefits of extraction with negative impacts mitigated. It establishes that key success factors are related to empowerment of Indigenous communities and have the potential to maximise positive outcomes for communities in the context of lithium extraction. Governments and companies must embed a more bottom-up process with an end goal of communities themselves defining the parameters of what a just transition means in the critical minerals context.

This paper builds on a thought experiment by Professor Harry van Buren, asking what might emerge if the Business and Human Rights field took a temporary ‘break’ from the UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs). It critically analyzes how the UNGPs’ pragmatic and consensus-oriented design, while instrumental in institutionalizing the field, has also shifted its normative orientation. The paper argues that the increasing dominance of procedural pragmatism has led to compliance-driven approaches that risk displacing more justice-oriented, participatory visions of accountability. In response, the paper aims to contribute to potential reimagining of the field outside of the confines of the UNGPs by offering an alternative pathway grounded in Critical Dialogic Accounting and Accountability, Worker-driven Social Responsibility, and prefigurative politics. The paper concludes with a reflection that the future of BHR depends not just on expanding the implementation of existing norms but on rethinking what accountability can look like when built from below.