CSR For Energy Sector

This report from Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 'Bitter Truth: Migrant Worker Abuse in the Production of Sugar, Cocoa, and Coffee in Chiapas', published in April 2025, explores the harsh realities faced by agricultural workers in Chiapas, Mexico. It highlights a number of signficant issues with #supplychain and #procurement practices within the sector: 1. Labour Exploitation Migrant workers, including Indigenous peoples from Central America, suffer from low wages, excessively long hours, unsanitary housing, harassment, and violence, particularly targeting women. 2. Forced and Child Labour Cases of modern slavery persist, with children exposed to hazardous working conditions. 3. Health & Living Conditions Lack of healthcare and social benefits; overcrowded and unsafe housing; exposure to agrochemical pollution, linked to childhood leukaemia and other illnesses. 4. Climate Crisis Impacts Rising temperatures affect crop yields, particularly coffee. Environmental degradation due to deforestation, agrochemical use, and industrial waste mismanagement. 5. Transparency Issues Many firms lack public #humanrights policies, particularly in the sugarcane sector. The lessons for #procurement and #supplychain functions from the report include: - Strengthen supplier accountability and require suppliers to publicly disclose human rights policies. - Ensure compliance with fair labour standards. - Implement ethical sourcing practices, prioritise suppliers with strong human rights commitments. - Avoid sourcing from companies with documented labour abuses. - Monitor and audit supply chains, conduct regular audits to verify compliance with labour rights and environmental standards. - Use independent verification mechanisms. - Support sustainable procurement, encourage suppliers to reduce agrochemical use and adopt renewable energy. - Promote fair trade models that empower local communities. These recommendations aim to protect workers, increase transparency, and promote sustainability in agroindustry, but are obviously applicable across many similar supply chains.

This new International Labour Organization research on forced labour bans lands at exactly the right moment for the UK. It shows something policymakers often skirt around: trade tools change behaviour when they change incentives. Import bans are not symbolic. When credibly enforced, they alter risk calculations, unlock remediation, and force companies to engage where softer measures have been ignored. The Malaysian rubber glove sector is a case in point. Access to market drove reform faster than years of voluntary commitments ever did. For the UK, the implication is straightforward. Forced labour bans are not optional if we want a functioning market. Without them, the UK risks becoming a dumping ground for goods excluded elsewhere as the EU and other major economies tighten their regimes. That is not an abstract concern. It is the predictable consequence of regulatory divergence, and choosing not to act is itself a governance decision with real economic cost. The research also makes clear that bans alone are a blunt instrument. Used in isolation, they can displace production, damage workers, and reward concealment rather than reform. The strongest outcomes emerge where bans sit alongside clear expectations on companies to identify, prevent and address exploitation in their supply chains. This is where the UK debate too often fragments into false choices. We need both. Forced labour bans provide the hard economic backstop that prevents market abuse. Mandatory human rights due diligence provides the operating system that tells companies what good looks like, creates legal certainty for those acting responsibly, and drives earlier, cheaper intervention before harm becomes entrenched. Together, they do three economically material things. They protect UK firms from being undercut by exploitation. They reduce systemic risk in global supply chains that increasingly shows up as legal exposure, operational disruption and investor concern. And they shift the market from disclosure and denial towards prevention and resilience. One of the ILO’s most important insights is that change accelerates when enforcement is paired with credible remediation pathways and social dialogue. That is not anti-business. It is how well-designed markets function: clear rules, predictable consequences, and proportionate obligations aligned to risk. The choice for the UK is not between growth and standards. It's between shaping a competitive, credible market or passively absorbing other people’s failures. Forced labour bans stop the floor from falling out. Mandatory due diligence stops the same risks being recreated upstream. In a global economy that is already moving, convergence is not a future option. It's the price of remaining a serious trading nation. Eleanor Lyons, George F., Adam Smith-Anthony, Emily Pica, Aladdin Benali, Unseen UK, Giles Bolton, Ethical Trading Initiative, British Retail Consortium, Matt Crossman, Dame Sara Thornton, Martin Buttle

🚨UK Businesses: Ready for a New Business and Human Rights Law? 🚨 The proposed law from the UK Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Eleanor Lyons, was published today. The Commissioner highlights that as other countries increasingly regulate human rights, the UK must step up. If it doesn’t, the UK risks becoming a “dumping ground” for products tainted by forced labour. ✅ In February 2025, the Business and Trade Select Committee called on the UK Government to introduce Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence (MHRDD). ✅ In June 2025, the Government launched the Responsible Business Conduct Review. ✅ In July 2025, the Joint Committee on Human Rights made strong calls for MHRDD. It emphasised that import bans should not stand alone but they form part of a comprehensive package that includes proactive due diligence, stakeholder engagement, and access to remedy. ✅ The UK’s Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner has now developed model legislation for this new law. What would the law look like? 1️⃣ Failure to Prevent The proposed law builds on the ‘failure to prevent’ model seen in other UK legislation (e.g., Bribery Act 2010 and Economic Crime & Corporate Transparency Act 2023). Where a serious human rights harm occurs and a company is involved in the harm (i.e. causes, contributes, or is directly linked to, that harm), the company would be viewed as responsible for that harm, unless it can prove that it conducted “reasonable due diligence.” There would be two types of liability: Civil and criminal liability  ⚖️ 2️⃣ Forced Labour Import Ban The law would provide for a general ban on exporting, importing or making available on the UK market “forced labour products” (products made with, or transported with, forced labour).   Transportation of, as well as making, products with forced labour has been added (this is not in the EU Forced Labour Regulation) to address forced labour happening in transport and logistics industries. 3️⃣ Other Companies would be required to publish an annual human rights statement, replacing the Modern Slavery Act’s existing reporting requirements. A registry for human rights statements would be set up to enhance transparency and accountability beyond modern slavery disclosures. 🌐 The Office for Responsible Business Conduct, a new office under the Department of Business and Trade, would oversee compliance and ensure businesses meet the new law’s requirements. 🏢 And ministers would be required to ensure that all legislation is aligned with obligations to protect against business-related human rights impact (e.g., avoid creating counteracting policy). What are next steps? Expect much more discussion on mandatory human rights due diligence and import bans in the UK in the coming months. 📅   You know where to go for guidance: UN Guiding Principles and OECD Guidelines. This is the basis for these laws. 🌟 Soft law becomes hard law (when/ if it gets picked up in the King’s Speech!)

A signal to watch Africa on business and human rights? 🇬🇭 #Ghana's new National Action Plan on #BHR I recently came across a very insightful article from Florence Shako, where they analysed 5 NAPs on BHR in Africa, and got inspired to learn more. Africa may be quietly and confidently reshaping the global conversation on business and #humanrights. I was very impressed with Ghana’s newly launched National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights #NAP‑BHR for 2025–2029: very well aligned with the #UNGPs, comprehensive, and ambitious. I would say even beyond seemingly "leading" countries such as Germany, UK and France on HRDD matters that have legislation in place (#lkSG, #MSA, #devoirdevigilance). Highlights from Ghana's NAP-BHR that really stood out to me: 🙌 Tax incentives for companies that comply with BHR standards 🙌 Plans to publish corporate ratings on BHR compliance, bringing transparency and public accountability into the spotlight 🙌 Presents a comprehensive national baseline assessment mapping human rights risks (linked to environmental ones) across sectors like extractives, construction finance, and manufacturing 🙌 A strong focus on access to remedy, with practical mechanisms to support affected communities and workers Ghana’s NAP on BHR isn’t just aligning with global expectations, but it seems to be raising the bar. It's also exciting how this fits within other developments in the region: ✔️ Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, Liberia, and now Ghana have formal NAPs in place ✔️ Mozambique’s draft NAP, though still in development, shows considerable stakeholder engagement and strategic direction (per recent news) ✔️ South Africa’s King IV and draft King V (from this year!) Codes embed ESG and human rights into corporate governance frameworks. Even where there isn’t a standalone #HRDD law, we are seeing powerful sector specific initiatives, from child labour policies to responsible procurement, that reflect a growing commitment to rights-based business practices rooted in local realities (meaning localised action to embed the UNGPs instead of copy pasting). And although we are yet to see how these commitments will be materialised, there might be learnings for other parts of the world, especially Europe. Further reading: Ghana NAP-BHR: https://lnkd.in/evF38uuS https://lnkd.in/eywrTajX #sustainability #responsiblebusiness #laws #hredd

After five years of benchmarking companies against the #UNGPs, I am thrilled to share our latest report 📊 The State of Play on Business and Human Rights: Trends and insights from five iterations of the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark (2018 - 2023) While the majority of companies have progressed since 2018, there remains an urgent need for companies to do more to protect the rights of those most at risk - particularly within global supply chains. Key takeaways: 📈 Progress made: Some companies are meaningfully advancing in areas like human rights due diligence and grievance mechanisms. ❌ Challenges persist: Many still fall short in embedding respect for human rights across their supply chains, including responsible purchasing practices and supplier support. ❗ Rightsholders in focus: Gaps in implementation mean millions of workers and communities remain vulnerable. It’s clear: we need bold action to close these gaps and deliver meaningful benefits to rightsholders. This report is a resource for investors, companies, and advocates to push for transformative change. 📥 Download the report and join the conversation on how we can drive real impact! https://lnkd.in/ex-DpX9P 💬 How do you think we can accelerate corporate accountability in supply chains? Let me know your thoughts! #HumanRights #SupplyChains #CorporateAccountability #CHRB #WBA