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.

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 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 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.

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 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 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.

This study presents three key steps to enable the Business and Human Rights (BHR) research agenda to promote and advance greater applicability to the emerging challenges in the field. Drawing on research conducted on BHR sources (almost exclusively by Brazilian and Spanish-speaking authors), this article aims to demonstrate the need for further BHR scholarship to simultaneously: (i) identify and remedy epistemic biases through reflexive engagement with a victim-centred scholarship from the Global South that recentres BHR research on the perspective of affected communities; (ii) move from consideration to co-production by grounding BHR theory in practice via participatory methodologies and dialogue between communities, researchers and corporations; and (iii) by aligning with steps one and two, recontextualize Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) research into an integrated Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence (HREDD) approach that incorporates environmental and climate dimensions and ensure meaningful, victim-centred engagement with affected communities.

The 2017 French Law on the Duty of Vigilance of Parent and Lead Companies has been hailed as a pioneering national legislation to hold corporations accountable for human rights and environmental abuses. Most lawsuits brought under this law have faced a plethora of admissibility objections, and so far, only one case has resulted in a decision on the merits. Initial formalistic court decisions on admissibility have now been mostly dismissed. However, critical questions around the role and powers entrusted to judges under the law remain contested.

Immersive technologies, such as augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR), allow people to immerse themselves in a complete virtual environment, or enhance the physical world with digital elements. Also referred to as extended reality (XR), these technologies create experiences that feel real, whether fully or partially virtual. The impact of XR on human rights and society is linked to a large-scale consumer breakthrough, which could pose significant human rights risks. This article discusses these risks through the lens of four public values rooted in human rights instruments: privacy, autonomy, non-discrimination and a clean and healthy environment. It highlights the urgency for governments to protect and companies to respect the rights of both XR users and non-users. The aim is to initiate discussions on early interventions, avoiding missteps seen during the rise of social media, when benefits were encouraged, while risks were overlooked.

Over the past decade or so, ethical recruitment has become increasingly popular as an aspirational standard for addressing labour violations and human rights issues in the transnational recruitment of migrant workers. While multi-national corporations (MNCs) – both international buyers and their Tier 1 suppliers – have been quick to adopt and codify ethical recruitment principles in their company codes of conduct, the same cannot be said for the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) further down the supply chain. Grounded in a case study of a small packaging company in Penang, Malaysia, this article explores how SMEs navigate their human resources and financial constraints in their attempt to practise ethical recruitment. We conclude with some brief reflections on the role of recruitment agents and the (in)equitable allocation of costs across global supply chains in making ethical recruitment a realistic and achievable goal for SMEs.

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.