Overview
A version of this article appeared on Law.com, read more here.
While business and human rights has, for many years, been unpredictable, the volatility of 2025 feels unprecedented. The roller coaster included geopolitical shifts, the varied impacts of tariffs, revisiting DEI and ESG commitments, simultaneous rollbacks and enhancements of child labor laws in US states, the sexual assault of a major national leader, hot debate over the European Union's (EU) Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), continued uncertainty regarding the on-again-off-again EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), major decisions from the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights regarding climate and human rights, and armed conflicts around the world. The chaos is occurring amidst human rights becoming mainstream in the programs of major companies, as systematized approaches to embedding human rights throughout organizations is now common. Those programs must be agile and dexterous to meet the demands of a growing web of human rights and sustainability legislation being adopted in home and host jurisdictions.
As we perform our annual tradition of identifying 10 key business and human rights and sustainability issues for next year - our sixth such endeavor - our predictive powers are put to the test. But we again draw strength from Human Rights Day, which a trusted AI source helpfully confirms "truly represents" a call to action, boldness and bravery. Validated by an incontrovertible authority, we offer our top 10 business and human rights and sustainability topics for 2026 below, grouped by 4 themes: addressing key rights, conflicts and their aftermath, global technology, and questions post-Omnibus.
1. Freedom of Expression under Threat (Everywhere)
Early in 2025, US Vice President JD Vance proclaimed there was a retreat in free speech across Europe. Numerous high-profile examples thereafter confirmed that the pressure on freedom of expression is not exclusively a European affair. They include calls by think tanks and prominent commentators for governments and companies to remain committed to free expression after Charlie Kirk was assassinated for exercising that very right. They also include a prominent UK university, the source of extensive reporting on Uyghurs in China, allegedly blocking a professor of human rights from publishing about forced labor practices. Other examples involve prosecutions and new laws associated with burning the Koran, lengthy prison sentences for social media posts, and a US Executive Order for "Prosecuting Burning of the American Flag."
Freedom of expression is a foundational right. It is a cornerstone for democratic societies, and essential to enjoy and protect all human rights. However, the right is not without limitation. Violence has become a means of solving societal debate. Ideological opponents are enemies. Oxford University Press has named "Rage-bait" its word of the year. States are thus reconsidering the boundaries that separate ICCPR Article 19 (freedom of expression) and Article 20 (incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence). The debate involves businesses, which must consider how to build workforce comradery and speak-up cultures while delineating employee expression they will tolerate. Their considerations range from the jewelry and religious clothing employees may wear to work, to how they treat employee petitions and protests, to discipline over controversial employee social media posts. Deliberation over when expression can and should be restricted by companies and states will be a top issue through 2026.
2. Conflict's Burgeoning Risks
Global conflicts are more prevalent than at any time since World War II. The Geneva Academy reports that it is monitoring 110 armed conflicts around the world. Seventy-eight countries reportedly are engaged in conflicts beyond their borders. The Peace Research Institute further notes the multiplication of conflicts within individual countries. They call it a "a structural shift," with a world "far more violent, and far more fragmented" than in the past. In 2025, more than 11% of the earth's land surface was within a 50 km radius of a conflict event - the highest ever recorded.
The trends are particularly complicated for companies that operate in conflict-affected areas or are connected to parties to conflicts. With a growing focus on value chain duties, companies face legal, operational, investor, and reputational risks when sourcing from or selling into conflict-affected and high-risk areas (CAHRAs). Governments are prosecuting companies and their executives for war crimes, blocking transactions, and trying to seize assets of companies connected to conflicts. Congressional and parliamentary bodies are issuing harsh reports against companies for failing to adequately track their exports to CAHRAs. There are letters before action and lawsuits against actors providing funding, goods and services to warring parties, and a recent $20 million jury verdict against a bank for allegedly financing genocide in Sudan shows that these cases can yield results. With the proliferation of conflicts, 2026 will see an increase in investigations, enforcement proceedings, and hearings from governments, and litigation initiated by private parties, against corporate actors based on wartime harms connected to their products and services.
3. AI's Vanguard: Killer Robots
The nature of warfare has changed dramatically. Drones dominate the Russia-Ukraine war, as assaults are undertaken by robots, with prisoners even surrendering to them. AI also has led to increasingly sophisticated Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS), which independently identify and engage targets without human intervention. Companies specializing in AI, unmanned systems and automation are engaging in groundbreaking weapons research, as are traditional defense companies. To date, the most common types of weaponry with autonomous functions have been defensive systems, although weaponized drones, along with land and sea vehicles with offensive autonomous capabilities, are being developed.
However, human rights groups have raised concerns about LAWS and digital decision-making. They cite risks regarding use of force and proportionality, the right to peaceful assembly, non-discrimination as evidenced by algorithmic bias generally, and right to privacy associated with mass surveillance, among other things. The UN Secretary General has called for a ban on autonomous weapons. 270 civil society organizations founded a campaign, Stop Killer Robots, and they are pushing a new international treaty to regulate autonomous weaponry. Military experts disagree, arguing that autonomous systems are devoid of self-preservation instincts and battlefield stress and fear that can lead to unnecessary violence, and can process data more effectively because it is not distorted from preconceived notions. The discussion of how to regulate autonomous weaponry will not conclude in 2026. But given the growing demands on companies regarding the use of their products, the changing nature of warfare, and the sheer volume of conflicts, the issue will generate significant debate.
4. The Promise and Perils of Reconstruction
The Gaza peace deal appears to be sticking. If the world has its way, the Russia-Ukraine war will soon conclude. In both locations, and others affected by conflict, massive efforts to rebuild will begin. In Gaza, the UN estimates $70 billion is required for reconstruction. The World Bank estimates that Ukraine will be more than $500 billion. Both will take place in territories where ownership of land and informed consent may be disputed, and regions where the construction industry has generated significant human rights impacts. Construction in the Middle East is notorious for widespread abuses, including modern slavery, wage theft, child labor, health and safety conditions, poor wages, substandard housing, and other harms. Eastern Europe is viewed only marginally better. The FIFA world cup held in Qatar and the Sochi Olympics are just two recent examples.
The work to rebuild Gaza and Ukraine will be mammoth and difficult. It will involve questions about who can provide legitimate consent, along with consortiums of construction companies from around the world with varying commitments to responsible business conduct. Construction will take years to complete and require tens of thousands of migrant workers, vulnerable to exploitation by labor brokers, recruitment agencies and the shady web of subcontractors that will spawn. Decent worker housing will be elusive, as will safety conditions amidst a rush to meet deadlines. The heat of Gaza and the cold of Ukraine pose their own hazards. While peace for both conflicts will be greatly welcome, the human rights issues associated with the rebuilds will be a top issue next year.
5. Data Centers and the Hardware of the New Economy
It is poignant that the Farmers Almanac, delivering homespun wisdom since 1818, announced that it will shut down just as data center construction recently exceeded $40 billion in a single month. AI now instantly offers the planting guidance and weather predictions contained in the Almanac, and data centers store and process that data, along with text, code and other information sources that are part of the AI revolution. Hence the world's more than 6,000 data centers, the backbone of the digital economy, with more on the way.
But just as AI brings its own human rights risks and opportunities, the centers that house and process data do, as well. AI can help accelerate access to remedy, counter bias in human decision-making, identify forced labor indicators, and locate poverty pockets with greater precision, but also can create privacy concerns, generate biased outcomes, and exacerbate inequalities. The construction of data centers likewise bring jobs and employment to a wide range of new communities, and support AI's beneficial uses. However, access to land, water, power and natural resources can conflict with the rights of community members. Data centers also can create noise and vibrations disruptive to local residents, as well as pollution. Data security threats are paramount. There are protests about locating data centers in human rights "hot spots," and concerns about autocratic governments accessing the information in data centers. 2026 will bring increased human rights scrutiny on the growing body of data centers, including where they are located, when and how they are built, and how they are maintained and protected.
6. Plus ça Change: Global Trafficking Remains a Constant
There is a dramatic global concentration on human trafficking. It is one of the few areas of political consensus in the US, as bipartisan legislation continues to emerge from senators from across the aisle. Recent laws in US states have included victim protections and penalty enhancements, dedicated government bodies and entities, mandatory training and reporting, and focused efforts on certain types of higher risk businesses. Laws around the world are similar and increasing at a rapid pace. There also have been numerous criminal and civil actions against corporate actors and their officers based on activities in the US and abroad, spanning a wide array of industries. State attorneys general have brought cases against companies, and EUROPOL and INTERPOL have been highly active, as has the Australian Federal Police and other law enforcement bodies.
These trends will continue and grow in 2026. We will see new anti-trafficking laws across the US and globally, impacting a wide range of companies. Prosecutions and civil actions will continue to be pursued aggressively. With the ILO estimating that human traffickers victimize 27.6 million people worldwide, the concentrated efforts are overdue.
7. Trade Policy Benefits Labor
While the US tariffs have brought reported harms in developing countries, new trade agreements have also yielded significant international labor rights protections. In July, as part of the US-Indonesia trade deal, Indonesia committed to adopt a "forced labor import ban and remove provisions that restrict workers and unions from exercising freedom of association and collective bargaining rights." The next month, the US-EU trade framework included a joint commitment to ensure "strong protection of internationally recognized labor rights, including … the elimination of forced labor in supply chains." A few months later, the White House announced trade deals with Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia and Thailand, each of which reference labor rights. The agreements with Malaysia and Cambodia both include provisions to adopt and implement laws that protect international labor rights, and mandate that the countries adopt and implement prohibitions on importing goods produced in whole or part by forced labor. Thailand references the importance of freedom of association and collective bargaining, along with addressing sectors with high risks for forced and child labor.
These efforts to protect labor rights are important and strategic. The US imported almost $30 billion from Indonesia last year. Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand are the three countries with the greatest value of shipments stopped by Customs and Border Protection under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. Foretelling the recent US agreements, the Heritage Foundation's influential Project 2025 emphasized the importance of protecting US domestic workers from goods imported from jurisdictions with weak labor standards and exploitative conditions, and recommended free trade agreements with provisions similar to those in the recent deals. But the US is not alone. The EU's Forced Labor Regulation will provide similar protections to EU workers and Mexico has strengthened its investigative powers on forced labor imports. France's fast fashion bill also seeks, in part, to protect domestic and EU-based manufacturers from the influx of cheap goods, and Italy's rejection of Chinese tomato paste is driven both by a concern for forced labor and to protect domestic producers. There are further calls for forced labor import bans in Australia, the UK and elsewhere. 2026 will bring more strategic governmental activity to protect domestic workers and industries while promoting international labor rights.
8. The Omnibus and its Discontents: CS3D v. Guiding Principles
The fate of the CSDDD perhaps has been 2025's most visible human rights issue. Adopted in June 2024, it was quickly shelved for streamlining as part of the Omnibus Package. There are reasons to be confident a skinny version of the law will reemerge in late 2025 or so, and companies will renew their efforts to prepare for it – either because the law directly applies to them as a due diligencer, or it indirectly applies to them as a due diligencee.
As became evident during the CSDDD's brief prior lifespan, translating Professor Ruggie's vision from general principles that can guide companies into clear and unambiguous terms enforceable as law is easier said than done. Once the CSDDD returns, questions will include fundamental ones, such as the human rights actually relevant given a definition of "adverse human rights impact" that may plausibly extend to a vast array of rights. Questions also include how certain rights to date applicable only to states can be transposed to private companies, such as a right to privacy, which include substantive and state-specific procedural protections in its traditional definition. There are also certain drafting ambiguities, such as regarding the right to life and freedom from torture in Annex 1, which seem to be defined in a way that can create corporate liability based on an inability to "control" the police ("public security guards protecting the company's resources, facilities or personnel" causing the death of or subjecting a person to torture "due to a lack of instruction or control by the company"). Nor is it immediately clear how key provisions like stakeholder engagement will be defined, or even how the law will be enforced across the 27 Member States. While the law itself will be reborn, next year will yield healthy debate on what it truly means in practice.
9. Disclosure Dissonance: ISSB v. CSRD
For many years, there have been attempts to standardize human rights and sustainability disclosures. These have included voluntary standards, like the Global Reporting Initiative, the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, the UN Global Compact, and the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. More recently, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) introduced two standards, IFRS S1 (a general standard) and S2 (climate), to simplify sustainability reporting by creating concrete guidance for how companies disclose their climate, human rights and sustainability-related risks and opportunities. Disclosures under both derive from potential financial materiality to businesses in the short, medium and long term. 36 countries representing about 60% of the world's gross domestic product (GDP) have adopted or are progressing toward adopting the IFRS standards. At the same time, the EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), poised for a noisy return, will be enforced by 27 EU member states and 3 European Economic Area states. It covers more topics than the ISSB, and includes a human rights impact materiality requirement not found in the CSRD.
Before 2026 is over, we can expect to see 1/3 of the world's countries, representing most of the world's GDP and market capitalization, with mandatory reporting requirements encompassing human rights. However, we also will see a bifurcation in reporting standards, given the material distinctions between the IFRS and CSRD. Next year, multinational companies will have to sharpen their pencils to navigate disclosures across both regimes, mindful of the persistent risk of a greenwashing claim.
10. Scaling Grievance Mechanisms into the Unseen
While largely escaping scrutiny, establishing notification and complaint systems might be the most germane company requirement in recent human rights due diligence laws. Laws like the Germany Supply Chain Due Diligence Act and the CSDDD include provisions requiring companies to implement grievance mechanisms across their operations and value chains. Under the CSDDD, in practice, claimants generally advise the company before notifying authorities and pursuing civil recourse. In other words, how and whether the company responds to raised concerns often determines whether regulatory investigations, fines and lawsuits ensue.
However, there are implementation challenges contemplated in the CSDDD facing covered companies, particularly regarding mechanisms that must extend up and downstream. Practical hurdles include whether a single company has the resources to process concerns related to potentially vast value chains and their affected stakeholders, how a covered company approaches remediation of a supply chain issue where the supplier has multiple other customers, and the triage process where supplier complaints raise management and not human rights issues. 2026 will bring innovative approaches to meeting the grand vision of full value chain grievance mechanisms, including industry and multi-stakeholder initiative collaborations, technology solutions and other novel strategies.
Conclusion
While plot twists and deep pivots dominated the 2025 business and human rights landscape, we end with a final nugget for 2026. The US and EU grabbed the headlines, but proposed mandatory human rights due diligence laws are quietly progressing elsewhere. They include South Korea, Switzerland, Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan and multiple LATAM countries, such as Colombia, Brazil, Chile and Peru. New Zealand has two modern slavery bills, and other countries are experimenting with different approaches. Keep an eye on the regulatory map throughout the year, as it is destined to change.
