Greenwashing cases holding businesses to account for false or misleading eco-claims are an increasingly visible component of the business and human rights landscape globally. In the European Union (EU), the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive is the centrepiece of regulation for business-to-consumer claims. Within the European Green Deal initiative, the EU is revising this framework, first with the Directive to ‘Empower Consumers for the Green Transition,’ and second the pending proposal for a ‘Green Claims Directive,’ introducing detailed requirements on the substantiation and communication of ‘green claims’ to consumers. If fully adopted, this fundamental reform will impose greater restraints on the discretion of any authority charged with the assessment of green claims and provide more uniform criteria across the EU, resulting in more accurate environmental claims and greater clarity for consumers and businesses alike.

This piece outlines the engagement of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights with the United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on business and human rights in light of the Advisory Opinion requested by Mexico on the obligations of the firearms industry. It outlines how the Court has relied on the distinction between positive and negative human rights duties, which has led it to constantly find states responsible for omissions (failing to ensure rights) instead of actions (carried out by private actors, including corporations). For the Court, such a distinction translates into the possibility that corporations can violate human rights directly.

The defence industry plays a critical role in maintaining international peace and security, yet its activities inherently have human rights implications. This article examines the industry’s responsibility to respect human rights in conformity with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It explores challenges, practices, and opportunities of human rights due diligence within the arms sector—including the end-use monitoring component. It seeks to inform policymakers, industry, scholars and activists working towards a rights-respecting arms trade regime. The article will explore human rights due diligence’s foundations in international human rights law and corporate social responsibility frameworks, as well as emerging shifts and standards in the legal landscape at the national, regional, and international levels. Drawing on the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights evidence-based research, this piece will also explore the industry’s response to its due diligence obligations and how these narratives cannot shield the industry from legal, financial and reputational risks.

Large European arms companies increasingly own and control subsidiaries in other parts of the world. These subsidiaries operate hundreds of production sites used to manufacture and export weapons for the benefit of the parent company. Yet, they are bound by the legal framework in host countries. An important case study of this phenomenon is South Africa, which is now the site for numerous subsidiaries of large European arms manufacturers, including Rheinmetall and Hensoldt. Between 2018 and 2021, a Rheinmetall subsidiary in South Africa continued to export weapons to Saudi Arabia despite a German prohibition. This article uses South Africa as a case study to examine the potential consequences of the practice of offshoring in the context of weaknesses in South Africa’s arms export control framework and provides recommendations on how to improve scrutiny and reporting in South Africa’s system to better guard against this type of conduct.

This article examines recent measures undertaken by major commercial banks to mitigate and address human rights risks associated with their financial dealings in the arms industry. By reviewing the corporate policies of 20 leading banks that provide financing to top arms manufacturing and exporting companies, the article provides insights into three significant aspects of banks’ efforts: the development of defence sector policies, the implementation of risk assessments for adverse human rights impacts, and the application of exclusion clauses. These measures highlight the increasing recognition by banks of the need to address the ethical, social and human rights implications of financing arms deals, contributing to the broader regulatory and normative framework governing the arms industry.