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.

After the endorsement of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) by the Human Rights Council on 16 June 2011, 15 March 2024 marked another milestone for transnational corporate governance. That day, a qualified majority of the member states of the European Union (EU) voted in favour of the Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD) setting human rights and environmental obligations for large companies in their global value chains.1 The CSDDD is the first region-wide due diligence legislation, yet it is also a political compromise among EU member states, which civil society and business have been watching closely. This piece explains the main elements of the CSDDD and outlines some of its implications beyond the EU.

This Special Issue denotes the first comprehensive attempt to place business and human rights-related (BHR) developments in the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) region on the map of global discussions in BHR. The CEE is a geographical area that is historically, politically, socio-economically, geo-strategically and culturally distinct from other regions, including Western Europe. Hence, this Special Issue explores the region’s specific elements and factors and how they affect and influence the implementation and embedding of human rights in the practice of business enterprises in the region. The ‘Scholarly Articles’ and ‘Developments in the Field’ pieces collected in this issue highlight the promising and not-so-promising developments and practices of state institutions, business enterprises, and other actors. It documents the current situation in the region and outlines ideas and prospects for addressing the identified challenges over the next decade. As an introduction to the Special Issue, this editorial outlines the region’s leading trends and prospects in BHR. It reflects on persisting challenges and notes the region’s progress in BHR awareness, knowledge and capacity in recent decades.

The ‘Mind the Gap’ project has created a toolkit for civil society to hold companies to account for their adverse impacts. The toolkit sets out two distinct but interlinked frameworks: harmful corporate strategies resulting in the avoidance of responsibility for adverse impacts, and civil society counter-strategies to overcome these harmful strategies. Both frameworks capture the unique experiences of the Mind the Gap project’s global consortium partners and civil society actors focused on corporate accountability. The project responds to a need to close governance gaps that arise in the context of the current global economic system. It is only by identifying and understanding harmful corporate strategies that civil society can effectively advocate for corporate accountability and the closure of governance gaps.

In February 2020, following a decade-long struggle for justice, a determined group of displaced Cambodian farmers and two advocacy organizations (Inclusive Development International and Equitable Cambodia) reached a landmark agreement with the Australia New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ) to provide a financial pay-out to the farmers for their suffering. The agreement set an important human rights precedent for the global banking industry. It was the first time known that a commercial bank made a financial contribution to remediate harms caused by one of its corporate customers, after acknowledging that its human rights due diligence had been inadequate.1 The case was also a rare example of a community receiving financial compensation through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)’s voluntary system of corporate accountability (the OECD’s National Contact Points or NCPs). While the final outcome was positive, its singularity and the immense effort, tenacity and resources required in obtaining it, demonstrate both what is wrong with this corporate accountability system and what reforms are needed to reach its potential to advance greater business respect for human rights.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), designed to build critical infrastructure and coordinate economic growth, is the most significant development initiative in modern history. The BRI has a documented vision for sustainability, including environmental impact assessments and responsibility tenets. Despite this, a growing body of literature has found adverse effects of BRI projects on protected land and species. To understand corporate responsibility and regulations for companies participating in the BRI, we gathered information on 260 BRI companies using the Refinitiv Eikon BRI Connect database and the China Global Investment Tracker. The results revealed a significant gap in corporate responsibility reporting for biodiversity impacts, environmental restoration, environmental project financing and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 14 ‘Life below Water’ and 15 ‘Life on Land’. The modest fraction of companies that we found to report biodiversity accountability highlights the need to restructure and incentivize the reporting of environmental and biodiversity risks. The current evidence of limited adherence to responsibility measures highlights a clear opportunity to align BRI development with the BRI’s vision for sustainability, and to strengthen links for policy engagement within Chinese regulatory frameworks and international obligations at the United Nations within its SDG framework.

A ground-breaking judgment of the Australian Federal Court regarding the Montara oil spill in the Timor Sea in 2009, Sanda v PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd (No 7) (Sanda (No 7)),1 is one of the few Australian class actions to proceed to a favourable judgment for the claimants. It is also the first judgment against an Australian company for cross-border pollution loss suffered by foreign claimants.

Human dignity, effective human rights protection and the rule of law are the backbones of the legal system of the European Union (EU).1 The EU and its member states have been front-runners in human rights protection not only on its own territory, but also beyond in their relationship with third countries. They have been the principal standard-setters in the field of business and human rights (BHR). The majority of the EU member states (15 out of 27) have so far adopted National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights.2 As far as legislative action goes, the EU has in recent years adopted two binding legal acts in the BHR field, namely, a Directive requiring obligatory non-financial reporting for large corporations3 and a Regulation concerning mandatory due diligence for the EU-based importers of minerals and metals from conflict-ridden areas.4 More recently, the European Parliament and the European Commission have been working towards adoption of a general directive for obligatory human rights and environmental due diligence for large corporations.5

The sixth session of the United Nations (UN) open-ended intergovernmental working group (IGWG) tasked with ‘elaborating an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises’1 (BHR Treaty) took place virtually during 26–30 October 2020.2

This article presents three arguments on why businesses have direct obligations under existing international law. Nevertheless, in the present state of international law, the obligations of businesses are limited and wholly dependent on the state’s further action of implementation and enforcement. To reach this conclusion, the article asserts that businesses have partial legal personality in international law; that legal obligations and the enforcement model must be distinguished as two separate issues; and that human rights are requirements of justice that emanate from the dignity of each human person to any social actor, including businesses and other non-state actors. The article attempts to contribute to the debate about a binding instrument on business and human rights and presents an alternative understanding of international law that can assist domestic tribunals in applying international human rights standards to businesses as they carry out activities in their jurisdictions.