Mongolia’s journey in promoting human rights amidst its thriving extractives industry reflects a complex interplay between economic growth, inclusive development, human rights and environmental rights. While hailed as among Asia’s freest countries, Mongolia continues to grapple with persistent issues, notably in balancing its economic aspirations and mineral wealth with protecting the rights of communities and the environment. This piece critically examines the mining sector’s impact on local communities and environmental protection. It assesses competing interests, exploring the tensions generated across diverse stakeholder groups. Furthermore, it highlights opportunities for a more human rights-centric framework within the extractives industry in order to foster responsible business conduct and sustainable development.

As companies struggle to conduct human rights due diligence and governments attempt to monitor compliance with supply chain regulations, they are increasingly turning to digital technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI). While AI-based tools can improve supply chain visibility and assess human rights risks, they carry potential risks of marginalizing rightsholders and undermining traditional conceptions of corporate accountability. This article examines the methodologies behind these tools, the role of technology firms in their design and application and the unintended consequences of relying on those firms to interpret the legal norm of human rights due diligence. It draws on a critical analysis of AI-based tools as well as interviews with officials from technology firms, consultants and human rights advocates. I argue that although AI can enhance human rights due diligence, AI-driven corporate accountability delegates interpretive judgment to technology firms, privatizes human rights and deemphasizes stakeholder engagement.

Following the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, not only have States’ obligations and responsibilities regarding climate change come into greater focus, but so too have those of private corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters. The ICJ opinion adds to an array of recent legal and regulatory developments that are shaping the accountability of corporate actors for climate actions and impacts. This article aims to provide a basis for critical analysis of the role of law and regulation in contributing to global corporate climate accountability, thus responding to a significant gap in the literature and practice. Underpinned by greater appreciation of carbon major companies’ role in driving climate change—and growing scientific evidence attributing specific impacts to their emissions—the article argues that a legal ‘ecosystem’ for global corporate climate accountability is emerging and seeks to map its core characteristics and inflection points. Developments across this ecosystem are taking place at and between the levels of international, domestic/regional and transnational law, including the ICJ’s advisory ruling, transnational climate cases, harmonised standard-setting processes and findings in domestic and regional corporate climate litigation. As interactions between these legal developments increase, the resulting ecosystem of applicable norms and implementation mechanisms is becoming denser. This article discusses hypothesised implications of these interactions across the global corporate climate accountability ecosystem, asking to what extent the ecosystem’s growing density may amplify corporate accountability for climate harms or, conversely, dilute companies’ accountability for the climate effects of their activities by fragmenting the legal response across a multitude of forums.

Mapping and measuring corporate harm to human rights and the environment remains difficult due to limited data transparency and inconsistent reporting standards. Yet robust information is essential to understand the magnitude of the problem, track progress and support an empirical research agenda capable of identifying what effectively curbs business-related misconduct. This paper introduces a new open-access dataset documenting alleged human rights and environmental abuses—the REBALANCE Business-related Human Rights and Environmental (BRAVE) database—involving 83 of the largest publicly listed European multinational corporations between 2000 and 2020. Built from systematic data collection from the Business & Human Rights Centre, the dataset codes allegations by type of abuse, country, victims affected, corporate involvement (direct or indirect) and severity, enabling comparative and longitudinal analyses. By offering a replicable empirical foundation, BRAVE aims to support evidence-based research, policy development and stronger corporate accountability in the business and human rights field.

Plastic pollution is a diffuse, cumulative and value chain-generated environmental problem that remains insufficiently addressed by existing product, waste and market regulations. This article examines the potential of the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) to function as a horizontal governance mechanism capable of embedding plastics-related risk management within corporate decision-making. Using a doctrinal and governance-oriented analytical framework, the article assesses whether plastic pollution qualifies as an “adverse environmental impact” under the Directive, how its risk-based obligations may apply across upstream and downstream stages of plastics value chains, and how its enforcement architecture shapes corporate accountability. The analysis demonstrates that, although the CSDDD does not directly regulate plastics, it can procedurally operationalise existing EU plastics and circular economy objectives by integrating environmental risk management into corporate governance systems. At the same time, its effectiveness is constrained by structural limitations, including the exclusion of post-consumer stages, challenges of causation in diffuse pollution contexts and variations in enforcement across Member States. The article contributes a systems-oriented assessment of regulatory coherence at the intersection of plastics governance and corporate due diligence, while critically evaluating the limits of procedural regulatory approaches in addressing systemic environmental harm.

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.