3rd Meeting, (Room XX) Forum on Business and Human Rights 2024

Hi, good morning everyone. It's a great pleasure to be here with you this morning on the 2nd day of the Business and Human Rights Forum.

Welcome.

Welcome. I know people will continue to trickle into the room and I'm glad of that. This is a very important discussion we're here to have today and I'm eager for this conversation to take place and to speak with you and for you to hear from this amazing panel of experts. During the 2024 shareholder season, companies like Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin were presented with proposals that included requests to ensure their business practices were in line with the human rights obligations and commitments as articulated in the UN Guiding Principles. All of them urged their shareholders to vote no because they said that such a review of human rights impacts would not be in the interest of stockholders. It might have an effect on their profits. Yet many of the investors and fundholders expressed clear and unparalleled support to the UN Guiding Principles. The Working Group on Business and Human Rights recognized and articulated challenges like this in the Working Paper on Responsible Business Conduct in the Arms Sector and identified gaps in the regulatory framework governing the sector— gaps which allow the export of arms products and services to states where they are used to commit a wide variety of human rights violations. My name is Susie Snyder. I'm the Program Coordinator of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, and it is my incredible pleasure to welcome you here to this first discussion on human rights and the arms sector at the Business and Human Rights Forum. We're here to talk about whether or not the arms industry is obligated to do human rights due diligence. I'm joined today by a distinguished panel: Tara Van Ho from the University of Essex, Tulia Makado-Holland from Storybrand, Raja Almutawake from Watsana, Rodrigo Pintado from Mexico, and James Nurdal. It is a great opportunity for all of us to come together to speak about this issue, to talk about private sector involvement in the arms industry, and how within the current geopolitical context there are increased calls from companies and governments to finance and prop up the defence sector. In fact, later this week, the defence industry is holding a conference in Brussels specifically to solicit more investors within the sector. Currently, the arms sector and the financial sector are largely, but not completely, excluded from the Corporate Sustainable Due Diligence Directive. There are other gaps that we will be talking about and the responsibilities that we can further enhance to deal with those gaps. And I think it's important for us to think about what is the floor and where do we start and build up from that floor. And I think I'm going to turn to you, Tara, to talk about how the arms industry is governed and what are the human rights responsibilities of different actors to help explain what that floor looks like, if you please.

Thank you, Suzie, and thank you to the co-organizers for developing this and to the Working Group for allowing us to be in this glorious room. I'd particularly like to thank Alejandra Munoz and Katrina Schumacher from PECS and CUNO, respectively, who made sure that we stayed on task as co-organizers. So when it comes to the legal expectations, there's a multitude of fields that interconnect to regulate the arms trade. Let's start with the most traditional, which is the Geneva Conventions, 1949. All 4 Geneva Conventions share a common article that says that states parties are to ensure respect for the Geneva Conventions. That's now been much more broadly interpreted to ensure respect for international humanitarian law in both international and non-international armed conflicts. That duty is commensurate with the power that the party has to ensure respect by other actors. So if you are engaged in arms transfers, to a party to the conflict, you generally have a great deal of power, which means you are expected to exercise that power to ensure that they meet their responsibilities and respect the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law. In addition to the Geneva Conventions, you also have extraterritorial human rights obligations that already apply to states. Anytime the state is operating in its own capacity, It is supposed to protect human rights and respect human rights. Respect, obviously, similar to what we see in the guiding principles, means to refrain from interfering. But that duty to protect that we see in the guiding principles is already an existing obligation, and it means that you should be regulating your corporations, but also you should be taking action by yourself on your own to make sure that your arms transfers don't breach human rights or humanitarian law. The guiding principles reiterate that duty, and they add to it by acknowledging that businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights. That's all businesses, all industries, all times, all human rights. No negotiation. That should include human rights due diligence that is commensurate to the severity of the harm, and when that's conflict-affected, that means heightened human rights due diligence. When it comes to non-conflict-affected areas, Businesses are still under a responsibility to ensure that they understand the risks associated with their operations and their supply chains and their global value chains, meaning their customers. So, if you're selling arms to intermediaries with the knowledge that they're going to be brought into places like Mexico and used by— in illicit matters, businesses are expected to take mitigatory measures commensurate with that risk. Finally, we have the Arms Trade Treaty. This is the latest addition. It was very kind of the Arms Trade Treaty in 2023 to finally welcome the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. For those of you who are unaware, the Arms Trade Treaty was negotiated after the Guiding Principles were adopted. The Arms Trade Treaty includes a presumption in favor of trade. It requires for all states that are parties to the treaty to adopt export regulation controls. This includes undertaking human rights and humanitarian law due diligence to assess whether or not the arms will be used in a way that risks severe violations of either human rights or humanitarian law. Where the state can take mitigatory measures to reduce that risk, it's expected to do so. And only if they find that there is an overriding risk that a violation will occur should the state prohibit the export of weapons. Now, if you consider that the other states' obligations under existing international human rights and humanitarian law is to prevent violations, to take a more proactive approach to reducing that risk, you'll see that the Arms Trade Treaty actually undermines, to an extent, states' existing obligations and creates a real risk for the area.

Well, thank you very much, Tara. It's excellent to start off the morning with a little bit of provocation, if you will. Looking around the room, I know there are many people who have been heavily involved in the Arms Trade Treaty, and I'm eager for the discussion that ensues. I'm going to turn it now to Rodrigo. It's great to see you again. And I want to know if you could talk a little bit about the issues relating to the firearms misuse in Mexico and the region. And Tara, preface this a bit and then maybe talk a little bit about some of the activities that Mexico is doing to address this, please.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you. And once more, thank you for the invitation. For Mexico, it is really important that this debate is happening within the Forum on Business and Human Rights. We're very happy to be able to have a discussion on the arms trade's responsibility in this context. The topic for Mexico, the topic of due diligence on human rights for the weapons industry, is central and particularly in our case for Regarding large weapons than small arms and light weapons. So for Latin America, this has a heavy impact. Under the small arms survey every year, there are thousands of people who die because of firearms and 70% of the deaths occur outside armed conflict. North America, Central America, South America— these are the regions that have the highest proportion of firearms homicides globally, largely because it's easy to buy them. It's easy to get access to them in our continent, be it legally or through illicit trafficking. So in this context, there needs to be due diligence as a pillar to ensure responsible business conduct, especially given the real or potential risk of human rights impacts. Arms companies are not an exception. Their obligation to conduct Due diligence needs to be part of their operations, and that must be throughout the value chain, including development, use, and disposal of the product and related activities in pre- and post-production and trade for each business sector. To prevent and mitigate the damage caused by business activities within the weapons sector, one of the main actions that Mexico is promoting is traceability of products throughout the value chain in order to combat any weapons getting into the wrong hands. The final destination is monitored through marking of weapons and certification. This is an important topic. This is something that we need to discuss with the industry in order to identify tangible measures to limit the potential humanitarian impact of weapons. Unfortunately, weapons companies, particularly in the USA but also in Mexico, have refused to apply the guiding principles for their products or to carry out or to bear any human rights responsibility. The case of Mexico is particularly lethal. 70 to 90% of the weapons found at crime scenes come from the USA, the ones found in Mexico, and come through illegal trafficking. In the border states— Texas, New Mexico, Arizona— And so forth. There are 20,000 weapons shops. They know that one of their markets is organized crime in Mexico and Central America. And these shops are stocked and then the weapons are smuggled to the rest of the continent. With the U.S. authorization to sell military-style weapons to individuals from 2004, organized crime increased as did the number of fatalities in Mexico. So what is our government doing to respond to this challenge? We have adopted a multifaceted strategy to try to hold back this weapons flow because otherwise they simply strengthen the cartels and drugs trafficking. One of the focuses, in addition to the multilateral strategy, we encourage the Arms Trade Treaty negotiations. We seek to have the article on wrongful selling included so that other unauthorized purchasers cannot obtain the weapons. But it's not just a question of illicit trafficking. The Arms Trade Treaty, however, doesn't seek to address illicit trafficking, which is a problem. So in addition to multilateral instruments, we have also brought civil cases to the federal courts, 2 of them in the USA, one against weapons distribution companies that was brought in Boston, Mass., in 2021, and the second case against 5 weapons shops. That was brought in Arizona in 2022. So we're seeking to ensure that the weapons industry, which is currently promoting and marketing weapons for organized crime, seeking to ensure that those weapons do get into the wrong hands— that's happening from the USA— we're seeking to stop that. And we're calling on the weapons shops because they have responsibility as well. There are people— for example, we had a woman in Arizona who went into a shop and bought 10 assault rifles. We know that they cannot be for personal use. There's a big chance of them getting into the hands of organized criminals. So we brought the case against the weapons industry, which was first of all thrown out in a district court. Mexico appealed in 2023, and the appeals court's court first circuit ruled that the businesses did not have immunity. This is a big step. Because there's a law that protects the weapons industry in the USA against cases. But this was brought from outside the USA, so Mexico's case was admitted. The weapons companies, of course, are unhappy and went to the Supreme Court to try and get it overthrown, the ruling, in 2024.

Yes.

On May 5th, there will be a ruling from the Supreme Court. As regards the second case in Arizona, Mexico alleged that 5 weapons shops were responsible and did not have immunity and were smuggling weapons towards Mexico and carrying out negligent trade practices. Thrown out in March this year, the Tucson court ruled in favor of Mexico and decided to continue with the consideration of the case, considering that there were many indices of the shops selling weapons to Mexico and not doing anything to prevent it. So we've moved into discovery of evidence, and Mexico provided information on the fact that these shops had sufficient information regarding unlawful use. So Boston is looking at a broader responsibility of the weapons production companies. The Arizona case is looking at the specific aspects of the issue. The these are flagship cases, and we hope that they will make progress. In conclusion, I would like to say that we should mention the broad international consensus on holding companies responsible for the adverse impact of their practices. But litigation against the activities of the businesses is in some way an accountability exercise, but a broader accountability exercise is needed to point to the adverse consequences and call for comprehensive reparations. We will continue with these efforts in these international fora. And also through the court cases that I have mentioned. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Rodrigo. That was— I think we're all, you know, it's heartening to hear this decision, this ruling that businesses do not have immunity, that there is a responsibility to create systems of accountability and to address and create processes towards remedy, something that we're all, I think, quite interested in and quite keen on. I'm going to turn now to James and ask you to tell us a little bit about how the illicit arms flows have impacted people and communities in South Sudan, to bring another case study perspective to the room, but also to talk a little bit about the role of industry and in neighboring states in enabling illicit arms flows to regions that are under sanctions, like those in South Sudan? And maybe a little bit more— tell us a little bit more about what other states and what other steps states have taken to address this and what else they should do. So if you please.

Well, thank you. I come from South Sudan and I come from the grassroots. So I will talk about practical things and leave the policy to all of us. South Sudan is a landlocked country neighboring Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, DRC, Congo. As a landlocked country, we depend very much on our neighbors. And bearing in mind that South Sudan is under sanctions, and the only commodity we have in abundance in South Sudan are the small arms. We don't have much food, we don't have much of everything, but we have a lot of small arms. So the question, how do these small arms enter into South Sudan when South Sudan is a landlocked. And this small arms has made imbalance in the power. You will find the communities are more powerful than the local authority, and in some cases the local authority will depend on them, asking the youth who are armed to help them to calm down a situation where What is missing is those policies and those statements. Who is going to implement them? Who are the oversights? And what is the relationship between the oversight bodies and the communities? To us in South Sudan, I would cite an example where a local authority apprehended somebody who is a politician and locked them in a cell. After a few minutes, the community of that politician mobilized themselves and they were armed and they came during day, broad light, and released their person by force. And the government could not do anything because they were Super arms, and they were not able to do it. So South Sudan is having those small arms in numbers from 3 sources. First, because we have been in war for so long, so the small arms has entered into the communities and every household could have about 3 or 4. That was one source. The other source, we have an open border between Sudan and those neighboring countries that I have mentioned already where arms could come. Now, like anything which is not in the market, you always get customers and you enter into a black market. So our neighboring countries, knowing that South Sudan is landlocked, South Sudan is under arms embargo, they become like the middlemen now in between trading arms between South Sudan and their countries. And South Sudan could pay them money to— for them to buy arms in their names and smuggle them back to South Sudan. So this is where the question of oversight comes in. Who is supposed to to see who is supposed to follow up. Yes, policies are there, but I think practicality needs to be in place. I am happy to be speaking here where almost— this is the UN body, but the UN body also has a conflict of interest. You know, UN body is not purely a non-governmental organization. It is a governmental organization in a way. And international organization and missions in South Sudan are also having their own conflict of interest because for them to be in South Sudan, they must play a balanced game between condemning what is going on and also condoning it. I have seen some other people who tried to speak up and they were kicked out of South Sudan. So that made everybody to fear to talk about those injustices that are being leveled against the communities. So my recommendation is that Managed by corrupt individuals so that we were not able to control them. We will need help. We need that international oversight to see how these arms are being taken to those countries and who use them. Yes, I think I would end there.

Thank you so much, James. I think it's really important as we consider these issues to think about the flow of weapons, and James, thank you so much for really illustrating that and illustrating the impacts and the way that there are actors we may not be usually considering that are contributing to that flow of weapons, that may be helping to evade sanctions, that are not being addressed as well as they could in international oversight mechanisms. And that's the weapons flows. And now I'm going to turn to my wonderful colleague, Radja, to talk about arms exports and how they have played a role in human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law particularly in Yemen, because she works with Martana, which I'm sure everybody in this room is familiar, or soon will be familiar, with their incredible work documenting these violations. And Raja, if you could also talk a little bit about what steps should states and the industry take to not risk complicity in these grave instances of harm. Thank you.

Thank you.

You know, Yemen is a conflict zone since 2014, and it has 3 dimensions: local, regional, and international. Local parties to the conflict, they have either old inherited weapons, or they make their own weapons, or they are supported by their allies, whether Iran or the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia. It depends who they are and who their allies. But when we talk about arms trade, then from— and also selling weapons from Western states and companies, then we talk about the air force. And it's mainly the airstrikes by the Saudi and Emirati-led coalition. So, we as Muwatana documented about 1,026 Airstrikes? Airstrikes, illegal airstrikes, where about 3,000— more than 3,000 civilians have been killed, and half of them are women and children. Everything in Yemen has been struck— homes, funerals, markets, bridges, schools, hospitals. And when we say in Mwatana that we documented this incident, it means that we have visited the field. We make sure there is a military target or not. We try to find remnants of weapons whenever it is available. Then this arms trade doesn't have this only direct influence on civilians. It also makes it very complicated, the road towards accountability and peace. In this building, It was like a huge fight to have like an international investigative mechanism for Yemen, although it should be very common or very normal to have one just like Sudan and Syria and Ukraine. We finally could push to have the GEE in 2017, and in this room, it was for the first time in this Human Rights Council, as I know, that an international investigative mechanism fail because of voting. It was because of political and financial interests, which arms trade is just part of it. Mainly the UK, US, and France, we all know that they are selling weapons to Saudis and Emiratis. And this— we know that financial interest is usually more important than the blood of innocent people.

Thank you.

That's why the ongoing war in Yemen is just— it has never finished. We are now in a situation, no peace and no war, but also we never got the chance to have small avenue towards accountability. What should states do? States should not only stop selling weapons to parties to the conflict that has been, I mean, approved that they have committed violations and war crimes. They should also push for accountability and push for reparation for victims. And states, Western states, they can also push for peace, but in many countries they don't even push for the very possible peace because of the financial interest.

Thank you so much. I think that's really interesting, and I think it's good to think about the ways in which states are pushing for accountability, for greater responsibility in this, including from the arms industry itself. And Rodrigo, I was wondering, The work that Mexico has been doing around this has been quite incredible, and it's something that is groundbreaking and shows a great deal of leadership and creativity, which is sometimes not the most comfortable word in these rooms. Yet I'd really like to hear if you could talk about this effort in the multilateral stage towards greater responsibility and accountability.

Yes.

If you would, please.

Yes, thank you very much. Mexico's initiatives to tackle the problem of illicit trafficking and diversion of weapons and their impact in our region started in the multilateral sphere before getting to the national level. It started at the multilateral level, as I said, in the United Nations through the Action Program on Small Weapons and Light Arms, which had a much stronger vision of the way in which there should be control of small arms and light weapons. And when there was an opportunity to start negotiating an arms trade treaty, Obviously, we jumped in and we established a group of friends of Latin America and the Caribbean to foster the idea that we had of weapons trade be taken into account, because our understanding was that the initial negotiations were just talking about the bigger weapons, the sales of tanks and missiles and And then we pushed for the second conference to have an article on diversion actually be adopted and take into account the idea of working on the basis of consensus, which is a rule in the negotiations which Mexico objected to. But we didn't get our point supported, so it was hard to come up with agreements because of that consensus rule, and there was a lot of dilution.

Yes.

—of the articles. And now we are in the implementation phase, and we're trying to see how we can involve the states in the implementation of the treaty more, as well as the industry. We have presented a working paper at the last Conference of the Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty, together with Ireland and Austria, to involve the arms industry indeed in applying due diligence when it comes to sales of weapons. We think it's important to bring in the arms industry to this discussion as well. Some companies are prepared to do so, above all European firms, to get into these discussions, and others have no interest in that, or they view it as some sort of risk for their trade to get into these negotiations. But many actors involved in this process know that once a procedure for due diligence is established, this does not have an adverse impact on trade, either professionally or any other way. The arms industry is used to regulations because of the type of commerce they're engaged in, which is a risky trade. So we have this idea of assigning responsibility to arms companies, but also encouraging them to cooperate when there is resolve to participate in these processes in the appropriate forums. So in this forum, it's important to uphold these 3 pillars of the UN Guiding Principles. The idea is to have the responsibility of states, of industry, and also the measures to be applied when there are abuses and violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.

Great. Thank you so much for elaborating on that. And I think that it is really interesting to think about how many industries are— many highly regulated industries are subject to human rights due diligence. And you can think, for example, about the pharmaceutical industry. They also have human rights due diligence obligations, and that is an extremely highly regulated industry. And so, it kind of furthers the question about how the arms industry could adopt existing best practices. I'm so glad that she brought up questions around the industry. And there are many actors, of course, within industry as a whole. And so, I'm going to turn to Tullia now to talk from a perspective of an actor that we may not consider within the sector all the time, but from the perspective of a financial institution. Because Storebrand is quite a key leader from a financial institution perspective. And if you could talk about the role and responsibility you see for Storebrand, and what you think the financial sector— the role you think the financial sector can play in promoting the implementation of the Guiding Principles, as well as other norms, because we do talk about a complement of different norms in this process that do seek to prevent civilian harm. So, Tulia, if you will please get started.

So, thank you for inviting me. Storebrand is based in Norway. And on behalf of our pension clients, we invest in over 4,500 companies to diversify and spread the risk and ensure a good pension for them the day they retire. So yes, as a financial institution, we definitely have a responsibility. We have it independently of states' abilities or willingness to fulfill their own human rights obligations. And regarding the role we play, Yes, we clearly have a role to play considering the gaps on the implementation of the licensing regime that have been mentioned, the lack of respect of international humanitarian law in the world right now, together with a high level of armed conflict in the world. And now even more so when the emerging human rights due diligence regulations, regulations such as the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, does not apply to the arms industry. So, all this increases the exposure to human rights risk in our portfolios, in our funds, and we have to mitigate that risk. That's our responsibility. And I would say we have an increased responsibility together with other stakeholders, other actors, to push companies to conduct human rights due diligence and improve corporate behavior.

Thank you so much. And I think that you brought something up about addressing the risks. And the exposure within the portfolio. And that's something in my conversations with investors, it's a big question. How do we do this well? How do we do this? Where do we get the information that we need? How do we make sure that we address both the risk, both the exposure to harm, exposure to violations, and especially when it comes to both product-based questions, as well as behavior-based questions. I'm wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on that, please.

Sorry. Yes, I would like to tell the audience that there is an excellent guide for investors, so for the investors in the audience, attached to the session, which I really encourage you to check out and pretty much lays out the way we work. I wouldn't go into all the details because we don't have time for that, and I would like to focus on the actual implementations because that's where the challenges are. So, yes, we do. To conduct our due diligence, we do 2 types of screening. So first, we do the screening for controversial weapons. And as you mentioned, these are product-based screenings. So we see the company produces a controversial weapon. It might be anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions, chemicals. You know those. We do also exclude nuclear weapons. And lately, we have been asked, the financial sector, to report on our risk exposure to controversial weapons by the European Union in the SFDR, or the Sustainable Financial Disclosure Reporting. And it's interesting that nuclear is not there, so I'm wondering why, but maybe you know since you're nuclear. So apart from the banned controversial weapons, we also include those that might fall in the definition but are not banned by treaty. And by those I mean white phosphorus and depleted uranium weapons. We are also including under the controversial weapons lethal autonomous weapon systems because we see that international humanitarian law cannot be applied. So all those, when we find those, those are out. So it's clear. And then the more tricky one is about conduct, of course. And those are for conventional weapons screening. That screening is not reduced to the aerospace and defense sector. There are many sectors there. And there's also products that might have a dual use. So that's when it gets really tricky. So, there are many challenges there. I'll be honest, the screening for controversial weapons is much more straightforward, and we have data providers that screen those for us. So, as I mentioned before, we have 4,500 companies we need to monitor. Okay? So, you know, this is a lot of data that we need to handle. So, at least for the controversial weapons, It's a smoother process. But when it comes to this, there is clearly— there are many challenges, but the main ones are due to insufficient information many times. So, most data providers may focus mainly on countries under arms embargoes, and then we might get some alerts there. There is some information there. They don't cover all the companies, but at least we have something there. So, that part I feel more confident. And we have excluded some companies based on this. But when it comes to our actual discussing this with the companies, we don't have information linking the product, linking the weapon to the actual violations on the ground, on the victims. And that's extremely important if we're going to be discussing with the companies what's going on with their products. In addition, most sources out there are mapping exports to high-risk countries, and those sources focus on state transfers and type of weapons and not necessarily the companies. So for us, it's really hard to find that information. There are some indexes out there, but doing all this research, connecting the type of weapon to the actual producer, is quite labor-intensive. Just to illustrate very quickly, Amnesty just did a report on Sudan. And they said that their investigators analyzed 1,900 shipments in addition to open-source and digital evidence, including about 2,000 verified photos and videos to show how recently imported weapons are used in Sudan. So that's a capacity and resources that we really don't have in-house. So we are completely dependent on civil society to to come up with this, with these reports so we can do our due diligence. And the next step is like once that we find that there is suspicions that that company may be involved in that type of conflict, that armed conflict, it's very hard to engage with the companies. Why? Because we— they hide under these export license regimes. They just tell us that, well, the state have approved everything. They are in compliance with all laws and regulations, including international humanitarian law. So if we inquire more, they are not at liberty of disclosing information on defense contracts because, well, this falls under national security and is none of our business. So that's a pity. So we have excluded some companies based on this. Regarding emerging technologies, as you mentioned, this is even more of a problem. Because these are not defined in the category where we could search. And we see that, for example, artificial intelligence used to assist military purposes such as increased targeting or spyware, those are really hard to find, those transfers, right? So, especially for emerging— emerging technology. I will say that there is a lack of multi-stakeholder regulation for emerging technology that might be a weapon or a component and is clearly defined as such. We cannot do that work, we investors. There is not much licensing or export regimes for that, so what's the control for those? And there is no framework for us to evaluate when these technologies companies' conduct is not in line with responsible business conduct. We have had some exclusions regarding this. We recently excluded a global intercept spyware company for sales to the Myanmar junta. And this is because there was a high risk that this technology would be used to contribute to crimes against humanity in Myanmar. So I won't say more, but that's— yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Tulia. And I think it's important to think not just about the activities that are being undertaken, which is really good, and it's good to hear from such a diverse range of actors about what is happening, but also the challenges that each of these— each of you are facing in doing this work, because In order to address those, that's why we're here, is to collectively speak together and to find ways to address those challenges, to take this information back, and to look at what's next. What else can we do? What do we need to do? Raji, I'm going to turn to you now again. We talked a little bit about accountability, about irresponsible arms transfers, and ways to, in the parlance of the UNGPs ensure access to remedy for victims. And I know that in the work that you've done, you've run into some hurdles on that. You've run into some challenges. And I wonder if you could share that with us here, please.

So we believe in criminal accountability. It's the way to stop all the violations. It's not about how to train parties to the conflict, how to use weapons. It's about accountability. And for accountability, we have done as Muwatana with our international partners a lot of work in order to have avenues towards accountability, international avenues. And I can tell you that from our experience that the whole world is designed in a way that enhances impunity more than accountability. And I keep saying this is not a destiny. This is a situation that should change. So, in our case, it was not easy to push for accountability to target all parties to the conflict. So, the possible angle for us was the angle of arms trade. And this angle, we submitted, for example, a complaint in Italy with our international partners, ECCHR and RITRI Disarmo. We submitted communication to the ICC with our international partner. We submitted— we had an intervention with a case in the UK that was like run by the CAT, a UK NGO, and also we submitted a complaint in France. So we as a local NGO, we did all our homework on the ground. We documented all the details very carefully. For example, in the Italian case, it was like a perfect case. It was like the whole family has been killed by an airstrike, mother and with her sons and husband, and she was pregnant. There was no military target. We found part of the weapons, it was Italian, it was very clear. Also, our partners, they did their homework regarding desk research and legal analysis. But what happened next? The case was dismissed for political reasons, and we were not able even to appeal. The ICC also, we did very hard work with 26 incidents, and it's not easy to document these incidents and to do it in a very professional way that can be used for criminal accountability. But until now, this file has never moved. In the UK case, the judge— the judgment was so weird and was telling that everything that comes from human rights NGOs is not— they can't believe it, but they believe JIAD, which is like a center that was prepared by or done by the Saudis, and it was like closed. So if we did everything that we can do to have accountability when it comes to arms trade and it is proved with a very, very independent professional work that this has happened and then there is no international avenues. It is very frustrating and we keep, like, feel that we are digging the wall because we know it's not a destiny, but it is frustrating. So this is a question for everyone. We are doing our work, international NGOs are doing their work. Question for states: what should be done else in order to have criminal accountability for those victims, or at least to halt, to stop arms trade to those countries that are committing violations and war crimes in conflict zones? I just don't know what to say more. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks so much, Radia.

And if anyone wants to know the details of the cases that we have done, worked with, I can send like a summary for all the details about the cases and the companies and states and individuals who are in the cases.

That's excellent. I think we've heard a number of times how strategic litigation like this, an intervention, is a very powerful tool. I think even if the case itself is not successful, it still moves the conversation forward. It identifies a multiplicity of actors and helps at least build broader recognition of the need for accountability in these efforts. I'm almost ready to turn to the room for questions. I know that everybody is very eager. I can see people hovering on the edges of their seats. So please bear with me another moment. I just want to ask a couple of other folks. James, I'm actually curious your perspective in the same question I had to Raja. What are the victims— what are the main challenges to accessing justice?

Justice is not an easy thing, especially if you are from the Third World country. To access because all the decisions are taken somewhere else. I could bring up the case of Lundin. Lundin Oil Company operated in Sudan during the war, and that operation was granted by the Sudan government that was fighting the SPLA in the south, in an area that was contested, it was possible for Lundin to, to be able to, to, to get into the area by supporting the government. And by supporting the government, the government was able to purchase arms. They were supporting the government logistically. So we raised a case against that. And that case is now being handled in the Swedish court. One of the of the us of the community is that we need compensation for whatever damage has been done by the militias and Sudan army, but that is not possible now, and. The overall goal was the Sudan government was able to hire militias, arm them, and through their— through those arms, they were able to push away the community, displace them. So It is not possible right now because, as she, she was saying, it's very difficult to document those when the war, the actual war is going on. But nevertheless, the case is on. Recently, as I was preparing to come to this conference, Maybe some of you have heard from the news that a shootout in Juba happened between the government and a former chief. The former chief wanted to be arrested by the government, but his bodyguards were able to defend him, and the shoot in Jubaland that night. And that was the day I'm supposed to travel the following day, and my visa was still being processed in the embassy. The following day, nobody go to— nobody went to work. And lucky enough, I visited the embassy. I was told nobody is coming to work today, so come on Monday. Monday, which is supposed to be tomorrow, so I would have missed Good enough, there was somebody in the embassy who I know, a former NGO colleague now working in the embassy, just happened to get my passport because he knew earlier that I would be going. He called me direct, can you come and collect your passport or you are not going anymore? I said, I came earlier this morning. I was told the embassy is not working.

Yes.

So you could see how availability of arms could turn the situation, which is peaceful, into chaos and could prevent even justice to be performed. So those are the few examples that we— as I said earlier, I want to talk practically.

Thank you so much, James. It, you know, the issues that we talk about in this room affect people's lives. And that's— it's really good to reflect on that. And from, you know, from the loss of life to day-to-day ability to move, day-to-day ability to communicate, to document, to act, and to be members of communities. And I think there's— I think that's a piece of the conversation that's not necessarily at the forefront of every actor's minds. At all times, because of course everybody is driven by their own priorities. And recently, I mentioned this in the opening, that there's been a push within the EU, particularly within the European defence lobby, to reclassify the defence industry and the arms sector in particular as sustainable, as a social good, as a useful thing. for the protection of human rights without considering the impact on the day-to-day reality that we have here, we've been hearing about here. And this debate is getting louder, and it's getting louder across many sectors. And I'm wondering, Tulia, how it has impacted for Storebrand, how this push, including from EU defense ministers, to classify the sector as a sustainable defense product. How has that affected your, your day-to-day work? And, and the— and has it caused you in any way to reconsider the existing policies that Storebrand has?

Yes. So we have been discussing this internally. And, uh, well, the short answer is no, we don't consider the defense sector sustainable. And so far, we have not reconsidered methodology or approach that I just presented. We maintain our conventional weapons and military contractor exclusions for almost half of our funds, in addition to the controversial weapons exclusions which apply to all our funds. That means that half of our funds are weapon-free. However, we understand that conventional weapons are needed for legitimate purposes of defense, and thus we we do not have a blanket exclusion for conventional weapons. So our concern and due diligence has to do with limiting the potential misuse of conventional weapons. And there I think it's important to show the results of that due diligence then. Some figures for those who like numbers. In practice, this means that we have 40 exclusions under controversial weapons and 64 for conventional weapons. That means over 100 exclusions just related to weapons for our weapon-free funds. And for the rest, those invested some investments in conventional weapons, we have 15 aerospace and defense companies that we are invested in. And we are currently engaging with some of those, and those are part of our due diligence.

Thank you very much. And I think that's really important. You talk about the engagement as well, and there's a complement of approaches. between exclusion as well as engagement. But still, the arms sector is largely exempt from these mandatory due diligence legislation at the EU level. And we've heard quite a lot about how the existing norms may not be reaching every ear that needs to be thinking about them. Tara, if you would, can you talk about the additional frameworks that we need, please?

Sure. So, I do think that arms are a necessary evil. I wouldn't ever suggest that they're a sustainable evil, but they're a necessary one. That necessity doesn't mean that there aren't responsibilities. And in fact, the evil part of the necessary evil means that those responsibilities should actually be heightened. And the existing standards are not adequate, particularly at the EU level. That's not between— because the CSDDD on its own is insufficient. Taken in isolation, the CSDDD does mean that all 27 member states are failing to meet their obligations in several different ways. But when it comes to the arms sector, the CSDDD isn't operating in a vacuum. States have exporting systems. They have regulatory mechanisms in place that are not supposed to be political. They are supposed to be an independent assessment of the likelihood that the weapons will be used to contribute to human rights and humanitarian law violations. Unfortunately, increasing evidence shows that states are failing to take this seriously. Instead, what they're doing is a very tick box exercise. And often what they do is complement that tick box exercise with seeking certifications or assurances by the recipient states. This includes reportedly assurances that states will not use these weapons in the commission of genocide. Now, I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with the historical practice of states in the area of genocide, but they tend not to proactively admit that they are going to use weapons to commit it. Similarly, Radhya mentioned the Khat case in the UK. Originally, the UK government said it didn't need to investigate the likelihood of those weapons being used in IHL and human rights violations because the Saudi government reassured it that it was independently investigating all allegations of breaches. This is like asking yourself to be your own referee for a job application. These political compromises are not unique to the arms sector. They are quite common in places like the extractive industries. But we have long recognized that they are not sufficient in the arms— or in the extractive industries. That's why we have an independent responsibility on all businesses at all times in all contexts to take an assessment of the likelihood that the business is going to implicate human rights. That is because traditionally what we have seen are that states and businesses work together to muddy the waters of responsibility, constantly relying on one another to excuse actual political or legal responsibility, and then blaming each other when things go awry. So we need more. On the business side, what we need is very clear regulation applying to the arms sector. Similar to what we have in extractive industries, similar to what we have in the pharmaceutical sector, that says that they will independently assess the risk, and that exists alongside the state's responsibility. We also need greater regulation of the data providers. Tulia mentioned that they rely on data providers, but increasingly data providers are not linking their ratings to business and human rights standards. Instead, they're muddying the waters again and saying the social has a little bit of human rights but not really, and definitely not the full remit of business and human rights standards. And in doing so, they are leading investors awry. And all of that is before you get to the barriers of access to justice that Radhya and James have laid out. So there we need increased responsibility that shows how we are going to allow victims to access remedies, either by the state that has signed off on the export, Or by the business that produced and sold the weapons, we need that access to justice to be a clear avenue so that victims have an accessible and adequate remedy that they are already entitled to as a matter of human rights law.

Thank you.

I don't know about you, I'm bursting with questions, and I'm sure others in the room are, and now is our opportunity to hear from you. So, I see— okay, I see 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. It's hard for me. I don't know who you are, so if you could identify yourself and then speak. Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you, Sanne. Thank you. Vivian Schiavi from the International Chamber of Commerce. So, our initials are ICC. ICC, but obviously not to be mixed with another ICC. We have just launched the ICC Guidance on Responsible Business for Challenging Contexts, and the aim of the guidance is to support businesses faced with challenging situations that cause stay-or-leave dilemmas. The guide was initiated with the Russia-Ukraine conflict but has been developed to be used in different situations, including in-country conflicts. Conflict, and other sensitive situations. It was developed based on the input of both civil society and business facing live situations, crises on the ground, and addresses basically, you know, challenging situations that cause stay-or-leave dilemmas. In line with the OHCHR's own guidance, for heightened human rights due diligence in conflict. The whole aim of the guidance is to advise companies on that. And as we know, heightened human rights due diligence is understanding the context where the business operates and ensuring that the activities don't contribute to the violence. So, in short, the guidance advises companies to always establish a plan plan for each high-risk context where it operates, ideally before entering. And key criteria are ensuring the safety of its workforce as a first priority, establishing connection with reliable sources on the ground, using leverage to mitigate adverse human rights impacts, establishing collective action for shared assessments and responses, and also— well, those are the main things. And just in closing, one can find the ICC's guidance by just Googling it, ICC guidance on responsible business in challenging contexts. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Vivian. I think that's very useful and very practical. I will take a few more. I'm sorry that I lost track of my earlier, so I think I see Lizette, 2, 3, and then 4. So if you please.

Good morning. I'm Liz from the Guatemala Foundation. There are many concerns when I hear the various panelists, but specifically in Guatemala. To be brief, 80% of killings use firearms. 77% of those homicides are with legally registered weapons. Likewise, in Guatemala, institutions have very high levels of corruption and impunity. Weapons exporters in particular are involved with organized crime when they are the subject of complaints about the disappearance of consignments of weapons. They just have to report them. Nothing else happens. They're in line with the rules if they do that, and there is no other responsibility that applies. Now, if those weapons get onto the black market, then how can we ensure that the companies are made more accountable for negligent exports of Latin American— to Latin American countries, particularly weak countries like Guatemala? Thank you.

Yes. Hi. Okay. My name is Gabriel Merón. I'm an attorney with MM Law. It's a law firm that for the last 22 years exclusively represents victims of crimes against humanity, genocide, other human rights violations in civil litigation against aiders and abettors and enablers. So I just— among the many things we're doing, we have a case for the last 6 years in Iraq representing 4,800 Kurds who were killed or injured by chemical weapons. And the civil lawsuit pending, which we hope to go to judgment with in the next few months, is against 8 European companies who knowingly and intentionally built the largest chemical weapons factories in the world in Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War, while those weapons were being used against Iranians, and then were turned in 1987-88 against the Kurdish population, which was essential in a genocidal attack which killed 180,000 Kurds. So, we have a lot of experience in civil litigation against companies who are providing weapons. And we started with this case in chemical weapons back in 2018, is when we filed the case, thinking that it would be easy to show that that was something that was illegal and violated human rights before the guiding— around the guiding principles. Um, we have a lot of experience in the problems with access to justice. We represent over 15,000 victims worldwide in 26 countries and numerous cases pending. In terms of Raja, I would suggest to focus on civil litigation rather than criminal litigation. In every experience, everyone turns to criminal litigation in the international courts. You have a very high bar for beyond reasonable doubt and you have, when you're getting into criminal, huge political issues. Whereas if you focus on civil, on the victims and getting justice for the victims and compensation, then you have to prove a case beyond, not beyond reasonable doubt, but just the preponderance of evidence and so on. There's huge problems with statutes of limitations, limitations, and gathering evidence as everyone's done. But if anyone wants to check out our website at www.mm-law.com, You can find the cases we're working on and also find about this case that's pending right now in Iraq against European companies.

Hector, and then over there. Yeah.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much. A big thanks to the organizers and the panelists for their excellent presentations. I have a question to all the panelists. Next slide, please. So there is no doubt that we are currently at a geopolitical and geoeconomic crossroads, and we can see that the different hotspots for large-scale armed violence around the world are linked to major geopolitical confrontations, and we have seen how this has gone hand in hand with even open attacks on multilateralism, multilateral institutions, and the development and defense of international law. And this, of course, has thrived as security has been militarized at all levels, from the very local to the global, and this poses big challenges to any efforts to have any relevant control on the arms industry. And we have seen even how some governments are prioritizing the interest of this sector vis-à-vis the defense of international commitments in the area of international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and so on. I would like to ask the panelists their views about the geopolitical challenges, how the work you do and the work that is done within the framework of today's panel is affected And what are your views on how this will unfold in the coming years? And finally, your advice, your recommendation for grassroots organizations, especially from the Global South, working on these issues as to how continue doing their work or what areas and topics they should be mindful off. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. I'm going to take one more question and then— it's very difficult to choose. In the back, one more question from the back, and then we're going to need to wrap up, hear from the panel and wrap up, so if you please.

Thank you. Florence Foster, currently working at the Geneva Academy on International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law, but speaking in my personal capacity today. I'd firstly just like to congratulate the group of civil society actors that have worked for the past decade to bring this panel to fruition, so big kudos to them for the efforts made. A note was made as to the ATT's moderate approach on IHL and IHRL, and the importance therefore of the business and human rights community to heavily lean into that thematic. So I've cut a lot of what I was going to say But to cut to the chase, my 2 questions are, so how do we go back to the ATT to up the ante there when it comes to IHL and IHRL standards? And what additional research and outputs is therefore needed? Human rights due diligence guidance was mentioned, but who should actually be creating it so that it is authoritative and impactful? Thank you.

Thank you very much for that very clear question. I'm going to turn back now to to my panel and offer you an opportunity to, for 1 minute or less, if you would, to kind of answer where you feel comfortable. And I think I'll start with you, Rodrigo, if you please.

Thank you very much.

In respuesta a la—

after the comment by the person from Guatemala, What I should say is that in Mexico, one of the possibilities to avoid misuse is traceability of weapons, working with states, with the industry, through the Arms Trade Treaty mechanisms and bilaterally to raise awareness and ensure that weapons are traceable. If we can make them traceable with series numbers and certificates for end use of weapons that are for sale, then it's much easier to have accountability. If weapons are then diverted to unauthorized users or misused in violation of international human rights law or international humanitarian law. To respond to the question on the global context, that does have an impact on the effectiveness of multilateral bodies. Governments— some governments might be blocking multilateral action. Or questioning the relevance of international treaties and putting their national security concerns above global interests, that is an obstacle to measures to stop misuse and that this reduces effectiveness. That is a problem, particularly with the rising militarization globally, the attempts to raise military taxes, and the spiraling violence that we're seeing. But we see that this skepticism towards multilateralism is something that does persist, and Mexico, in all of the fora within which it works, is trying to uphold multilateralism and cooperation to address these issues, although we do recognize that the global context is a very difficult one. And we will continue also with the court cases, strategic litigation to bring about a better arms control. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Rodrigo. I'm going to turn to Tulia, then Raja, James, and finish with you, Tara, if that's okay, please.

Okay. So I will take the question about the geopolitical challenges and how that affects our work and what we're doing about that, and the recommendation for the grassroots organizations. Regarding how it affects our work, I think it's very important to keep the focus that this is not political, this is international humanitarian law. If you just, as an investor or any other type of actor, if you just keep focusing on that, then it's very clear what's going on and then how you need to act. We all have a responsibility. responsibility to respect international humanitarian law. That would be my answer to the first question. As to recommendation for grassroots organizations, please, we need to cooperate, investors and civil society, and especially those on the ground, the grassroots organizations. I would really encourage you to try to contact me at the end of this session or even contact the UNPRI. I know there are some members here. This is a platform for investors and we are discussing these issues on conflict-affected areas. There's also the Investor Alliance for Human Rights, it's here, and we are talking to civil society and definitely would like to hear from you in the grassroots, so thank you.

Yes, I think I will also go to these geopolitical issues. I was once in Beijing with civil society exchange visit and we were able to meet one of the directors in the foreign affairs in Beijing and one of my questions was, China, why are you supplying our people with arms? And then he took a minute before he could answer, but he said, if we don't, somebody else will supply them. So you'll see your political policies. So you're either with China or with the US, and between these there are companies that are supplying, and also those companies are supported by their governments. So unless we put everybody on board in the arms treaties to be a member and also fight for it, then the supply of arms illegally will continue to, to go ahead. So let's put our efforts and our hands together to pressurize those who are supplying arms to do it responsibly.

Thank you.

Well, actually, some of the cases that we are working in are civil accountability, not criminal accountability, but still didn't work. I don't know if your case you are working in since 2018 worked, but still didn't. It's still very difficult. For the geopolitics, I consider that many reasons of the war in Yemen is because of the curse of geography, for sure. There are many details in this. I want to say also, in our work towards accountability and the avenues that we've tried, I want to mention that at least in the European countries, we could submit some cases. But in the US, we have been discussing with American lawyers for years what can be done, at least for companies, not the states. And until now, we couldn't find any avenue to start with. There was something in my head. I lost it. I just forgot the last sentence, but that's it. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm going to try to keep this short. If we don't do it, someone else will do it doesn't excuse any other industry, and it cannot be used as a cop-out here. When it comes to how do we go back to the ATT, I would suggest we don't go back to the ATT. I would like to see leadership from the human rights community. Unfortunately, the arms control community has often seen everything through the lens of arms control and through the ATT. And what they need is a more holistic vision, and that can come from the human rights community. When it comes to civil litigation versus criminal litigation, it's harder to do with arms because of the issues around immunity. And generally, in civil law states, we actually encourage victims to use the criminal prosecution system because it cuts down on costs. And then finally, for our friends at the ICC, I appreciate the guidance, but when you talk about ensuring the safety of the workforce, for a lot of businesses, you have to consider who is your workforce. There have been many businesses that have used that same excuse to justify staying in Russia at the expense of the Ukrainian workforce, and they fail to consider it as a more holistic reality. And so we need to have a better conversation around that.

Great. I want to thank you all very much. It's one of the things that has struck me here is that we are talking about all industries. We are talking about all human rights. We are talking about all time, which is almost an everything, everywhere, all at once approach. And that can be difficult. But what we have demonstrated in this discussion is that there is a broad community of practice eager, engaged, and willing to take on these issues. And I very much appreciate your participation today. And if you will join me in thanking this excellent panel And our continued work together.

Thank you.

Good morning. If we can all settle down, start the session. So good morning, colleagues and friends. Very warm welcome to this session, The Inclusive Value Chain: Strengthening Interstakeholder Cooperation for Impactful Human Rights Due Diligence Legislation, organized by the Government of the Kingdom of Netherlands, Southern Voices for Global Development, Shift, and the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights. Today's excellent panel consists of Ambassador for Business and Development, Marcel Herman, of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Mohammad Arshad, Director General at the Ministry of Human Rights of Pakistan, Ms. Jumki Datta, Business and Human Rights Researcher at the Southern Voices for Global Development. Ms. Catherine Rabbe, Senior Manager Corporate Responsibility at Aldi Sud. And Professor Daniel A. Pamplona, Professor at the Law School at Pontificia Universidad Católica— I'm sure I pronounced that really bad— and visiting researcher at Bonferró Institute for Human Rights. And I am Tom, Tom Thomas, representing a Global South civil society organization called Praxis based in India. So today you can find the detailed profile of each of the panelists on the website, and the format for today's discussion will be that each speaker, each of the panelists, will speak for about 4 minutes followed by a 2-minute question. And then that— once the panelists finish, which should be halfway into our 80-minute time, we will open it up for questions and answers. We hope to take as many questions as possible and then some concluding remarks. So before I invite the panelists to speak on the topic and start this dialogue, Just 3 opening thoughts from a Global South perspective about today's topic. Firstly, when we talk about cooperation, we all know that it works best when the playing field is level, when we have a level playing field. And most of us who work in Global South and even in Global North know that this is not exactly the case. And this power asymmetry is something that I think we must recognize and take as a first step in looking at implementation of any of the legislatures for it to be impactful. Second, when you talk about stakeholders, I think we need to unpack what stakeholders mean. First of all, who are these stakeholders? Second, I think, what is their stake? Do they have a core stake, or is their stake very peripheral? Pandemic has shown us that a lot of the supply chain quote-unquote stakeholders were dispensable stakeholders. That's something which we will need to take care of when we move forward in this dialoguing. Third, I think for any legislation to be impactful, we need to recognize that something has not been right. And we are trying to correct it, and this costs. Now the question is: Who is going to bear this cost? Who's going to share this cost? Is it the company, the value chain, consumers, taxpayers? If taxpayers from global north or global south taxpayers, who is going to bear this cost, share this cost? How is this going to? Come forward. Having said this, from a southern perspective, I would say that these legislations, HRED or CSDDD, are a very welcome step and a very necessary one, and not yet a sufficient one. I would now invite the panelists to deliberate on the topics. First, I have Ambassador Marcel Herman, Ambassador for Business and Development at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Sir, you have the floor.

Thank you, Tom. Good morning, everyone. It's an honor to be here at this The Netherlands is a trading country and is active in many supply chains. The role of the Netherlands in international production, international trade in the Netherlands but also in producing countries is an important topic. And we have increasingly— we have to take into account planetary and human boundaries that influence international production and trade patterns. It influences food security and security of supply. It also increases abuses like human rights violations in supply chains, and we're discussing this over the last 3 days. And I can say one of my hats is also ambassador for business and development. And I can say it from my own experience that when I visited countries like Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Kenya, what you can see is actually that you have small-scale producers, whether it's palm oil smallholder farmers or cocoa farmers, and they struggle to balance the need to earn a decent income And of course also the pressure from the EU markets to produce more sustainably. They want to do the right thing, but often they lack the knowledge and the ability to invest. And on the basis of my experience, but of course also on the basis of what we read, is I truly believe that we all have a role to play to reach sustainability. In creating common standards and a level playing field, in supporting sector transformation, and secure inclusive, sustained, and sustainable international value chains that are not only good for business, but they are also fair for all stakeholders. The Netherlands also wants Dutch companies to take up responsible business conduct. And take account of human rights, working conditions, and the environment. In that respect, we have an active policy to implement the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and, of course, the OECD Guidelines on Responsible Business Conduct. And I think we started about 10 years ago with the promotion of voluntary measures on responsible business conduct among Dutch companies. Through pioneering multi-stakeholders agreements. And I actually— I think we made quite a bit of progress. But I also have to say we had a policy review in 2020 and it clearly showed voluntary multi-stakeholders initiatives, they work for frontrunners and for companies intrinsically motivated, but they did not reach the numbers necessary. It did not reach a number of other companies. So something else was needed. And we believe that the human rights and environmental due diligence legislation at the EU level is an effective tool to reach these larger numbers of companies and to stimulate them to work on due diligence. As you know, the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, CSDDD, came into force July 2024. And it's a milestone for business and human rights. It is the first regional due diligence law, and I'm actually also quite proud that we now have— in the Netherlands last week, we started the consultation process through internet. We believe that CSDDD is a positive development, and let me also again Let me also phrase why it is needed. Still 1.4 billion people miss decent working conditions, 1.4 billion people. 160 million children are still engaged with child labour and actually the number is not decreasing but it is increasing. So in summary, for me, The CSDDD is important because it supports resilient global value chains that respect human rights. One, it promotes sustainable earning capacity for all companies and countries. It creates a level playing field for EU companies. It promotes transparency and predictability in business conduct. It contributes to decent working conditions for people and environmental protection. And it promotes responsible engagement rather than irresponsible disengagement. And in the end, my final phrase for the 4 minutes, companies that operate sustainably have better long-term prospects for profitability. Thank you.

Thank you, Ambassador. You've already started touching upon it. What would you think are the challenges that you foresee moving forward in the implementation of HR-EDD?

Thank you. Well, it's clear that CSDD has implications for business, production countries, and other stakeholders, and that there are also challenges and concerns. Let me highlight a few. I think the CSD includes safeguards to ensure positive impact of legislation everywhere, including production countries and business worldwide. But of course it requires EU companies to investigate their own practices and support their business partners in the value chain to raise production standards. I think that is very important, that they take this responsibility. Companies should not shift obligations to more vulnerable business partners upstream, like in production countries. Another concern is the issue of the living income and wages. I mean, I have seen it time and again, a key issue in addressing wider due diligence risk, in addressing sustainability, is living income and wages. How can you expect small-scale producers to be sustainable if there is no income or wage where he can take care— he or she can take care of her family? So that is really a key issue in addressing those wider due diligence risks like child labour, deforestation, and forced labour. And I think from that I would like to also conclude that International cooperation is indispensable, and as the Netherlands, we also investing in those accompanying measures. They can provide a soft landing for CSDDD and support businesses and production countries. As Netherlands, we finance activities that support businesses in production countries. We do that in partnership with Dutch companies to increase productivity. Competitiveness, environmental and social production standards. Let me give an example. For instance, we support Solidaridad that gives practical support to sustainably produce. It helps farmers to diversify production with other crops, to support to produce more efficient, but also in innovation to develop digital tools that support farmers to register their harvest and empowers farmers to negotiate better prices. We also encourage sector cooperation to address sector-wide risk to people and environment. We have to insist on sector transformation. And lastly, we're also actively in Team Europe initiative to support business and stakeholders in producing countries. For instance, it established a help desk to promote the understanding of CSDDD and highlight also support that could be tapped. And lastly, I think it is important, and I made the point already, I think the human rights and environmental due diligence legislation can only succeed in close collaboration with all involved stakeholders, companies, local governments, NGOs, and trade unions. And we should ensure that it does not pose an excessive burden on production countries but achieves its aims. And we do hope that if we increase the impact, we do hope that CSDDD can also serve as an inspiration for other countries and other regions outside the EU. And for that, of course, for a successful implementation is absolutely key, and we invite everyone, especially from the producing countries, to also share suggestions on how we can ensure a successful implementation. Ensuring respect for human rights in value chains is a shared responsibility, and we would really like to make the progress we need. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ambassador. Let me turn to you, Mr. Mohammad Arshad, Director-General at the Ministry of Human Rights Pakistan, over to you for your opening remarks.

Thank you very much, Tom. Distinguished participants, good morning. I am privileged to be here in this UN Forum, particularly this session of the HRDD. I would like to just share the Pakistan experiences in developing human rights due diligence guidelines and the framework that has to be now implemented in collaboration with the inclusivity and the collaboration of the stakeholders in the business sector as well as the government sector organizations. Pakistan is the first country in South Asia that has developed its own separate National Action Plan on Human Rights. This action plan actually emphasized on the establishment of the— and the development of the human rights due diligence guidelines and the standing operating procedure to be adopted by the companies in Pakistan. This process actually was started 2 years back and now Pakistan is implementing these HRDD guidelines that although at present these are voluntary guidelines, but the consultation process with the stakeholder, particularly the business companies and the regulators, in process to be a full-fledged exclusive inclusive legal framework on the human rights due diligence. These actually— under this NABHRB, Business and Human Rights National Action Plan, actually covered the 3 main areas to ensure the human rights due diligence in their guidelines and the legal framework expected to be now promulgated and enacted through the parliament. Number one is under this action plan on business and human rights, the importance of HRDD has been given in this on the part of the business communities, on the part of the regulators, and on the part of the different stakeholders like the communities, the employers, the workers in the organization, in the companies as well. The second important thing is the impact of international legislation on Pakistan's economy and on Pakistan's businesses. This international legislation and international commitments may include that these— such as we can say the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directives, as well as the international human rights convention that Pakistan has already ratified in the form of the ICCPR, Prevention Against Torture, the CEDAW, the prevention of the rights of the child in the form of the UNCRC and UNCRPD as well. Pakistan has actually ratified 7 core conventions and implementing these conventions. Also, these conventions and the protection of rights of all the civil and political rights have been framed and have been incorporated in the human rights due diligence framework also in Pakistan. The last one, the important component that we have incorporated in our HRDD framework, That is exploring the feasibility to develop HRDD law, because in Pakistan so far we have not enacted any law or regulation, but the path we have started that on the basis of the voluntary commitment of the business communities to adopt the human rights due diligence in their operations. How we have started this actually in Pakistan, government cannot do everything alone. Yes, and government cannot give their own HRDD framework to the business community. This was an exclusive consultation process with the business organizations, with the employers' organization and employers' federation, and the workers' organization as well. So the tripartite consultation process was initiated and Pakistan now has framed and developed the HRDD guidelines through through the review of a legal process, through a review of the existing legal provisions in the areas of the human rights as well as in the legal framework in the areas of the environmental protection and the legal framework and the areas that we incorporated for the Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs. We have the particular the SDGs 16 we have covered in this HRDD framework. One thing I would like to also share with the audience that last month Pakistan did a constitutional amendment, 26th constitutional amendment, and the right to safe environment, right to healthy environment, and sustainable The sustainable environment is the fundamental rights now in Pakistan that we have incorporated, and they had— after the amendment of the 26th Constitutional Amendment last month, now the fundamental rights is to give the rights to the citizens of Pakistan as the rights to a safe environment, healthy environment, and the sustainable environment. So HRDD actually covered the area not only in the in the form of the human rights but also the labor rights, and the third one is the rights of the people who are vulnerable population, you can say the senior citizens, the person with disabilities, transgender persons, and the person below the poverty line. So the communities in the corporate purview that has been also covered in this area. So Pakistan also developed then Given these space to the companies, Pakistan developed a checklist, very simplified checklist, and shared with the business communities. That checklist actually formulated keeping in view the HRDD framework in Pakistan so that the business community can have very easy process to report on that HRDD. But so far, there is a need to be capacity building and the technical support and the financial support to the companies and the business organization they are operating, particularly the companies who are working at the small or medium enterprises level, not at the big level. But the big projects, they are already incorporated all these HRDD provisions, but at small and medium sector organization, they are still struggling to work on the HRDD checklist to be to be reported to the regulator as well. So—

If I may, in the interest of time, do you want to quickly move on to what are the challenges that a southern country would face moving from voluntary to mandatory kind of thing?

Yeah, so thank you very much. This is actually the very— Yes, this is a very crucial area to be— we have actually experienced in Pakistan, in many Global South countries also, like in Pakistan, for example, there is still huge lack of awareness and the understanding to be adopted the human rights due diligence in their operations, particularly in the small and medium enterprises level. The other important areas, we have experienced that lack of financial and the human resource to conduct HRDD in their own operations. So you see, the business communities or business entities or the corporate sector organization, actually they have their own frame of reference to work for the profit maximization, but when we have introduced this HRDD, so there is still understanding gaps of understanding and the lack of awareness due to their lack of expertise in their business operation. Drafting of HRDD law is also a challenge in Pakistan because so far we have not drafted this, but we are in continuous consultation with the stakeholder organization, stakeholders, particularly the business organization. Business organization, they have agreement. with the government and regulators to be an HRDD law or regulation in the country, but still, for the operationalization of this law, hard enactment of the law is a challenge to be materialized in the form of the legal document in the country.

Thank you so much, Mr. Arshad. I think a round of applause for Mr. Arshad. If I move on to Ms. Jumki Datta, Business and Human Rights Researcher at Southern Voices for Global Development. Over to you for— okay, Jumki, you're going to show a video first?

Okay.

So first we'll watch a very short video. And then over to Jumki. Thank you. Over to you, Ms. Dutta.

Thank you so much, Tom. And thank you for pointing out the power asymmetry, actually. And that's what I'm going to talk about now. So, first, I would say that this is a very important discussion when we are talking about CSDDD. I think inclusion, and especially from the perspective of stakeholders, is a very important discussion that needs to happen. Because in most cases, when we look at HRDD, it tends to be a top-down approach with no inclusion from the bottom. So, in that perspective, I look at CSDDD, I feel it's a very landmark legislation, especially after the disruptions and the violations that we've seen as part of the COVID pandemic. It extends the responsibility of the companies to conduct due diligence of not only their own operations, but also that of the value chain. And thereby, it increases the scope of what we otherwise call the workplace. However, the real litmus test, I think, is of CSDDD would be the way in which it is able to address the power relations that exist in the supply chain. So here, I'm going to talk about— while the manifestations of this power might be many, I want to talk about just 2 manifestations, and manifestations which actually has been talked about by our MSME partner who is working in Tamil Nadu. One manifestation is the power of resources. The bigger company, the bigger the resources, the bigger the knowledge that they have, and therefore they're able to drive their narratives, drive processes that are well placed in their context and their operations. However, the smaller companies like the MSME that we just heard, does not have those resources, neither has the knowledge. And therefore, they feel very constrained. They feel that everything is being imposed upon them, and therefore, it does not look at an inclusive process. And also, when it comes to— because there's a lack of resources at the disposal of the MSME, they feel it's a burden of cost. And that is one deterrent that actually, you know, deters them or the value chain actors to effectively engage in the HRD process. The second power manifestation that we see is the power of data and information. Today, the disclosures— disclosure practices or the disclosure frameworks— bigger companies have access to unlimited data of its own value chain, whereas the value chain actors do not have as much information. And that lack of information leads to a disengagement when it comes to negotiations. The MSMEs do not feel that they have the power or the space to negotiate with the bigger brands, whereas the brands feel that they— because they have the information how the MSME is working, what are the policies that they have, how many workers that they have, they feel that they have the power to include what they want in a contract and thereby pressure the MSMEs into accepting things that the MSMEs may not even understand and just adopt it primarily because it wants to get those orders. So I think these— the existence of these issues are actually— we need to acknowledge them, and it's only with the acknowledgement of these issues that we will actually start treading on the path of inclusion. The testimonial that we saw of this MSME is the story of all the MSMEs and all the value chain actors in India. Where they feel coerced into developing policies, developing actions which they don't understand, is not based on their context, and therefore they feel very disengaged in the process of HRDD. However, without addressing these issues, we won't be able to change the current asymmetry that currently exists, where inclusion is limited to just involvement, where people only consulted, MSMEs are only consulted, value chain workers are only consulted, and they are not active participants in the decision-making process. And if we are not able to realize that inclusion, we feel that it will not be able to break the power asymmetry and therefore lead to value chain reductionism and human rights instrumentalism. So, yes. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Ms. Dutta. If you want to very quickly elaborate on— this whole conference is about smart mixes, right? So if you want to look at it from a Global South perspective, what could be that smart mix of measures with regard to value chain?

Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Tom. I think the smart mix starts with the change in the vocabulary itself. The way in which we look at— we are talking about stakeholders and not right holders in this process. And when you talk about human rights, there are always right holders and not just stakeholders. Even when we talk about stakeholders, what Tom was also pointing out is also very pertinent, that what is the stake that they have? Whether they have any right in the process, what is the What is the part that they take in the decision-making, in the policymaking? I think the smart mix needs to look at all of that. The smart mix needs to actually pierce the epistemological paradigm that sets the fact that companies with bigger resources have the table, have the chair on the table, that they are able to set the agenda, that they have the only space to create and to develop narratives that that suit what their operations are doing and therefore drive HRDD in a process which is a very top-down and a very auditing-based process as opposed to a worker-centric architecture or a community-centric architecture or a value chain-centric architecture which tends to take active participation of these various stakeholders and right holders in the process. So we feel that I think the smart mix needs to start first with creating spaces where, you know, where diverse knowledge systems exist, where value chain actors coexist, and that informs the very— that they are able to inform the entire process from their own context and their own operations.

So, yeah, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Ms. Dutta. We'll now move on to our next panelist. Ms. Catherine Trabe, Senior Manager Corporate Responsibility at Aldi Süd. Over to you.

Yes, thank you. Let me start with a couple of words about the Aldi South Group. We're a discount retailer with currently 6,500 stores in 11 countries, and we sell basically everything— fruit and vegetables, shoes, or electric scooters. If you think about it, we will probably sell it. As a business committed to respecting human rights, we believe that the introduction of mandatory rights, mandatory due diligence legislations that are aligned with international standards like the UNDP, an important building block in ensuring the realization of human rights along international value chains. And this is for this reason that we have been consistently supporting the CSDDD and why we very much welcome its adaptation. Even so, some companies like us are already working on human rights due diligence. I still believe that the CSWD will trigger some important changes. For example, people need to be put at the core of risk management of a company, and the CSWD will support this move. And the more companies need to consider this, the more people will benefit from that. And then The transparency and reporting aspect of the legislation should support a competitive push towards better sustainability performance, as stakeholders will have better visibility on the performance of companies. I also think that the CSDD will create a much-needed level playing ground by establishing a common set of standards for the companies within the scope. And this level playing ground is needed is very essential to foster an environment for further collaboration. And then finally, by requiring stakeholder engagement along the whole due diligence process, the CSWD ensures that the perspective and the knowledge of affected stakeholders and vulnerable groups from all stages of the value chains will be included. And this is necessary for the implementation of meaningful measures. Let me give you some examples of what we, the Aldi South Group, have already been doing in the area of stakeholder engagement. First, we have been working with partners on some of our human rights issues. For example, we are partnering with the Centre with regards to child labour or the Mekong Club with regards to forced labour. And then we also joined multi-stakeholder initiatives and partners with organizations for addressing some challenges. For example, we are working with ISAWA in Thailand on the topic of complaint and remediation, or members of retail initiatives in the UK and Germany working more— or working towards living wages in the banana supply chain. And we are also participating in a multi-stakeholder initiative which is facilitated by the Ethical Trade Initiative, which is addressing gender-based violence and harassment in agricultural supply chain. The last example I would like to mention are our human rights impact assessments, of which we have conducted 9 so far. For those, we partner with external human rights experts, and stakeholder engagement with the help of local consultants is part of the predefined process. What we are currently doing is to make sure we can effectively implement the directive is that based on the examples that I just named, we are developing a comprehensive approach to stakeholder engagement to ensure that really all the perspectives of the relevant stakeholders will be included.

Thank you so much, Ms. Rabe. You mentioned about stakeholder engagement. So, if you want to briefly elaborate on how this stakeholder— what is the kind of approach that you're taking to stakeholder engagement, and how will this inform the implementation of the directive?

So, there are currently 3 priorities while we are preparing for the CSDDD. First of all, we are seeking to understand the legislation. Legislations and then to build up the internal capacity adequately. The third point is that we are developing a human rights and environmental risk management system aligned with the UNGPs and due diligence legislations. Because already, despite already addressing human rights and environmental risks along our supply chain, such an overarching system that encompasses all our activities has been missing so far. This system will have many benefits, and one of them is facilitated stakeholder engagement. Because what we are currently doing is that we are mapping for all our prior supply— prioritized supply chains all the activities on each step of the due diligence process, and this includes how we work with stakeholders and where we work with stakeholders. And part of this activity is to also do a gap analysis, because even though we already worked quite a lot with stakeholders in the past. I think we can definitely— there's definitely, to implement the directive, more collaboration is needed. I think going forward we will always aim to team up with others, first of all to address systemic issues. And one illustration of that is our participation in the ETI Gender-Based Violence and harassment initiative that I just mentioned, because the initiative will conduct meaningful engagement with a broad range of stakeholders, including companies like ours, but also workers or civil society organizations and topic experts, to really make sure that all perspectives are heard and considered. And then we will aim up to team with— aim to team up with others to ensure effective and impactful implementation. This is, for example, the case for capacity building and grievance mechanisms, topics for which working with other companies is necessary to avoid duplication and also to improve the efficiency for affected stakeholders. And then to inter— we team up with others to integrate the perspective and knowledge from stakeholders from our deeper supply chain. The how question at this point is is still a big one. What we know is that we want to foster meaningful engagement, but without overburdening partners, because in light of the CSDDD, now thousands of companies will start working on the same issues, and all of them will look into how to involve stakeholders.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Ms. Rabe. That brings us to the last but not the least of our panelists, Professor Danielle Pamplona, professor at the law school as well as visiting researcher. Over to you, Professor Danielle.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Thomas, also for the invitation to be here. It's an honor. And while from the academia we try to produce research and debates around the impact of different legislation on different stakeholders, so it will be rights holders, governments, and also corporations, of course. And although in my country we do not have a specific— we don't even have a national action plan. We do not have a specific legislation to talk about human rights and environmental due diligence. Our constitution allows us to have different other legislation that will tackle the issue, giving us different opportunities to think about prevention of human rights and environmental impacts. And through these researches, what we find, hopefully, we think that this will be helpful for corporations and for governments and rights holders when they are dealing with these issues. Well, what I'm trying to do, what I'll try to do here is just to share with you some of the findings that we have relating, for instance, companies. Of course, that They will have an impact. They will need to align themselves to the European directive, and this will mean an increase in costs, as we have seen before. For Latin America, this is really relevant because SMEs are also the most typical form of corporations that we have there, besides all the informal active economic activities that we have. So this will have an impact, and we still have to understand how exactly we're going to manage this. And of course, there's also an impact, a challenge that regards the reputational risks of all these companies there. Well, they can lead, of course, lost contracts, to investor pullouts, even to public backlash, and this is something that we're also trying to understand how to deal. Regarding governments, there are different impacts here, but just to mention at least 2 of them, I'll talk about the pressure that governments will feel in Latin America to strengthen their frameworks these pressures, they will be different. Of course, NGOs will think one way and business will think the other way. And this is actually something that we see there now. We have legislation being passed to try to void European legislation efforts to tackle deforestation, for instance. And since it's happening with deforestation, It will probably also happen regarding the directive. So, this is something that governments will have to be very clear about how they want to face these common problems we have. And of course, there are potential trade tensions that will also be created as governments might think, might view this new legislation legislation as an extraterritorial overreach over their territories. And, well, of course, we also have other impacts and challenges that will come out from the CSDDD regarding, for instance, right holders. But I know I do not have any more time, so I'll just stay here. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Professor Pamplona. If you want to elaborate a bit on the potential impact of this legislation on Latin American companies, or more importantly, the right holders, if you would like to do that.

Yeah, thank you. Well, what we find is that for the right holders, there's this specific article on the directive that will have a different and a direct impact on them, which is the directive, it follows the guiding principles when they talk about meaningful consultation and the directive talks about meaningful engagement. And what it is exactly it will mean for them, it's something that we're still to see, but there are already reactions because we do have some cases of dialogue between corporations and rights holders, between states and rights holders, sometimes under the umbrella of the AFPIC, sometimes not. And some of the challenges, just to complement what Jomke was talking about before, some of the challenges go around, for instance, the language. But not only the speaking language, but also the technical language that corporations will normally use to approach these communities. And so, there is, of course, a power imbalance here regarding the information that you were mentioning. There's an asymmetry that is not only regarding the language, but also the knowledge itself. And this asymmetry does not mean that only the corporation will come there with more information and with technical information, but it also should make us think about what is the knowledge that these populations, these communities can actually bring to the table to actually get to the point where, well, everybody wants to. The purpose will be to make a better life respecting human rights and respecting environment. So, we probably should take into the table also their knowledge. And of course, capacity building is something important. They need to understand better where is it exactly that the corporations want to arrive, what is the final point, the final destination of the conversation. And also this will work both ways. It's not only capacity It's not only capacitating these communities, but it's also building capacitation to the people who is going to talk to them. They need to understand that they depart from a different point of different perspective of life and environmental. The individualistic way of seeing things does not normally work with these communities, and this is something that also offers some. Clashes when they are trying to talk. I'm also staying here. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much, Pamplona. And this in more ways than one was the most diverse and inclusive kind of panel that we had today. We had corporates, we had governments, we had civil society organizations, we had academia, all of them bringing in their different perspectives. And the most important aspect, I would guess, is this dialogue, which is critical. And I'm sure this has definitely opened up a lot of What I'll do is I'll take about 5, 6 questions in the first round, and if time permits, we'll take more. So if I can see some hands.

I can't see the Germans in the back.

Right side there, Kevin. Yeah.

We have to take them.

This one here because she's a country, but I can't see— maybe ask if Germany's here.

We did have a person from the German— do we still have?

There we go. Thank you.

Oh, yes. One, then Jenny, you, one from the back, and one more. We'll come— we'll take a second round, yeah? Thank you.

Thank you for giving us the floor and thank you for organizing this important panel. Carrying out meaningful engagement with stakeholders throughout the due diligence process is an important prerequisite for effective risk management. Without it, companies are unable to recognize and correctly assess their human rights risks and choose appropriate preventive and remedial measures. The German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act is clear. As far as possible, companies need to consult external knowledge when analyzing risks. Consultations with rights holders or civil society organizations and trade unions speaking on their behalf promote transparency, understanding, and acceptance of the mutual concerns of those affected and the company. A consistent multistakeholder approach is an integral part of the German federal government's policy in the area of business and human rights. This is the only way we can craft effective, practical policies alongside NGOs from the fields of human rights and development cooperation and business associations. The German Trade Union Confederation is a permanent member of the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, a body within the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs that advises the federal government on the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles. On business and human rights. We greatly value this expertise. The working group emerged from the steering group for the National Action Plan Business and Human Rights adopted in 2016 and meets every 2 months at the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. In order to enable appropriate consultation, it is important to identify and remove potential barriers to engagement. It is important that stakeholders are free from retaliation and retribution, including by maintaining confidentiality and anonymity. Particular attention has to be paid to the needs of vulnerable stakeholders. Operational-level grievance mechanisms as provided for in the German law not only provide remedy, but they generate external knowledge that should be taken into account as part of the recurring risk analysis. The EU CSDDD will bring additional improvements. We already heard about the meaningful stakeholder engagement. This is an important step to further develop imbalances with regards to bargaining power and access to information. The CSDDD will improve access to effective remedy, tackling the barriers that right holders face both with regards to administration, enforcement, and civil liability. Suppliers in the Global South will benefit. Buyers from the EU will seek cooperation and exchange more than in the past in order to jointly ensure conditions on the ground that comply with human rights. Aspects such as purchasing practices and pricing policies will play an important role. The focus will be on the empowerment in order to improve the situation. In addition, the CSW further strengthen the role of multistakeholder initiatives as part of the toolbox to fulfill the due diligence obligations. They are fundamentally important for companies to identify risk and find effective responses. That is why the German government is strongly committed to cooperation between companies and civil society and trade unions. The implementation of the due diligence obligations only works through dialogue. We have already forged strong alliances in Germany with multi-stakeholder sector dialogues with the automotive and energy sector as best practices. For example, this year we have launched a cross-company grievance mechanism for— of the German automotive industry in Mexico, one of the German automotive industry's most important production countries. Companies joined forces and partnered up with stakeholders from Mexican and German civil society, trade unions, national human rights institutions, and German and Mexican government. The result is a mechanism that is accessible, balanced, transparent, and trustworthy. We hope it will contribute and serve as an example to increase human rights protections in global supply chains. To further information, please feel free to visit us at the German desk which is part of the Forum's marketplace in front of Room 20. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your intervention. One more intervention from Jenny. You have some experiences from voices from the supply chain.

Yes, thank you so much for giving me the floor. My name is Jenny Holdcroft. I'm from Shift, which works on business and human rights with businesses, financial institutions, and standard setters. We played a role in supporting the drafting of the directive, working with the different parties. As part of that, we interviewed suppliers in several production countries— Bangladesh, Thailand, Kenya, and Tanzania— because we thought that that voice, as the panel has pointed out, was very important to hear what that perspective was. What we found was there was very limited understanding of what due diligence was. It was perceived very much as a compliance exercise, and suppliers did not feel currently now that their buyers are giving them sufficient support to meet the demands that were put on them. And what was really telling is that they said that they were very reluctant to share information about impacts with their buyers because they felt that it would lead to penalties or even loss of business. I'm framing this as a question for the panel, and my question is, how can this new legislation help us to move from this existing dynamic that we see is happening to one where human rights impacts are recognized and mitigated rather than swept under the carpet or concealed? And also, how can buyers and suppliers work together to change these business models and practices that are leading to these human rights impacts?

Thank you. Thank you so much, Jenny. Yeah.

Thank you.

I'm Frans Dekker. I work at the FNV, the largest trade union in the Netherlands. Companies' own employees are, of course, an important stakeholder as well, and I have a question for Madame Raab from Aldi. The CSDDD makes it an obligation to, well, to develop a company's internal policies and risk management systems in prior consultation with Well, the companies, the employers' own employees and their representatives. You could think of the works council or a trade union, for example. The CSRD, of course, also mandates it to be discussed on an annual basis, the reporting to be discussed on an annual basis. So I was wondering, what type of experience do you have at Aldi with these these types of engagement with your own employees, works councils, and trade unions?

I would like to thank the various speakers for these informative statements. I'm from Tunisia. I'm a sociologist. I represent the CFTT NGO, the Committee for Vigilance and Democracy in Tunisia. I would like to react to some of the statements that have been made, particularly mentioning the impact of these small SMEs, the impact on vulnerable members of the population, above all immigrant women. I would also like to pick up the point of the challenges facing companies today which are in a movement of many difficulties throughout the world. In Tunisia, there's a lack of awareness and training both for employees and employers with respect to the implementation an exercise of human rights. And I can also say that in Tunisia we have ratified a number of international conventions which are related to workers' rights, above all a convention on domestic work. We know that domestic work affects many members of the population, women and immigrant women today, but unfortunately the implementation of these laws is coming up against many obstacles and difficulties in actual practice. Now, for the social aspects of SMEs, I don't think it's a lack of will or resolve, but it's rather a problem of good practices that are lacking. And I know that in Tunisia we have a list of Companies that are made up— 95% of them are SMEs and they are lacking in financial and technical resources to implement due diligence in accordance with legislation. Allow me to mention a few initiatives that have been taken in the area of corporate responsibility in Tunisia.

Your pointed question.

The question is, how can we ensure that these companies are supported so that this can be done throughout the world, or countries that have the same socioeconomic conditions at any rate can be supported equally? Thank you.

Yeah.

Impossible, and any attempts to do so would put my community at extreme risks. Can the panel elaborate on the responsibilities this legislation will place on companies when addressing contacts like mine, where due diligence is impossible on the ground and the abuses constitute crimes against humanity? Thank you.

Thank you. Maybe I'll take 2 more questions for the first round. Gentleman there. Yeah. And one. Yeah.

Thank you. My name is Tony Ojuku from National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria. Nigeria is the 3rd country in Africa that has adopted a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights. The development process has been very, very collaborative and consultative, involving all stakeholders, businesses, the academia, the civil society organizations, and government. However, during the process of consultations, we discovered that SMEs did not feature very much except through their associations like the Manufacturers Association, Association. Now, National Human Rights Commission is collaborating with the UNDP, the Network Global Alliance, or Network of African— of National Human Rights Institutions, GANRI, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to implement this plan. Now, we are having challenges in terms of financing the participation of SMAs because we need to build their capacity capacity to even understand how to mainstream human rights into the operations, deploying the due diligence principles and so on and so forth. My question to the panelists is, do you have experience in your countries where the National Human Rights Commission is leading the process of integrating responsible business conduct into the conduct of SMEs, and how have you been able to overcome the challenge of financing the participation of SMEs who don't have the capacity to imbibe these principles? Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Amanda Lindo. I'm sub-coordinator of our human rights network and organization of civil society in the south of Honduras. I thought it was interesting to hear the comments provided by the panelists and therefore I don't want to make a comment but really an appeal for action at the level of our network. Our civil society is working on a photovoltaic center that is being put up in the area of Honduras. And it is a Norwegian company that is involved in this photovoltaic project. And this is a company that is subject to due diligence. And Escato Norfunk is engaged in harassment, violence, and is currently being sued by the Honduran government for the damage caused, amounting to many thousands of dollars. And we think that there should be some action taken, but the communities affected and the defenders of the environment have not had access to justice. We have presented suits and complaints to the government of Honduras, but they have been ignored. We think that this is a space where we can raise the voice of these communities. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. If I may open this up to the panel. There were questions around— clusters of questions around the HR practices in company to the questions around How do we actually walk the talk really in terms of not pushing it under the carpet? How do we actually bring justice to this whole discourse terminology and look at communities? How does institutions, national institutions like Human Rights Commission, how do they get— are there experiences from around the world that could be looked at and replicated in other places and so on. I'll first turn to you, Ambassador, your thoughts. You could pick any of the questions and respond.

Thank you. Well, I'd first like to thank you for all the excellent comments. I think this is really a learning experience also for myself, so thank you for sharing those experiences. I'd like to pick up on 2 issues. The first issue is I heard a lot of comments about imbalances, whether it's power imbalances, financial, language, data, technical capacity, and I think we should recognize that those imbalances are there and I think there is a huge responsibility also on us to provide also what we call to invest in accompanying measures, and I think I mentioned that in my first intervention, but this is really becoming very important. And I think exactly that is what we are doing. We are funding organizations that are basically helping those actors in, let's say, in the production countries so that they will— that their capacity is strengthened, that they have better data, better experience, I think in this sense we also fund a research project to assess the effects of the human rights environmental DD implementation production countries and that we get those insights that are gathered from interviews and trainings conducted with local stakeholders including employers' organizations, government, and trade unions. And also those preliminary outcomes show also kind of the lack of knowledge and experience in the producing countries, and then giving the training and empowering key stakeholders here is important. And we work here with— I think there was a representative of FNV is also part of that, Mondial FNV, CNV International, also Fair Wear. So I think that is— and also I think through the Team Europe initiative we can do that even more effectively. So that would be my first comment. The other comment has also to do with a kind of imbalance that has to do with procurement. I think it was mentioned— well, I think the German representative said it as well. I think we have experience, for instance, in the cocoa supply chain that apart from providing living wage, living income, it is also important to look at the procurement and the procurement system because at the end of the day if you want to— and I said that before— if you really want to improve sustainability, if you want to make it affordable to become sustainable for local producers, you have to look also at procurement. It is a sensitive issue, but I think it's also an issue where collectively, through a multi-stakeholder initiative, we can make progress. And actually, we're seeing that now in the cocoa industry in the Netherlands, but I think there are also other countries where this is gaining some traction. So for me, that is a a very important development. Thank you.

Thank you.

If I may request you, Mr. Harshad, your thoughts.

Thank you very much. I have picked 2 issues. The first is related to the SMEs, the challenges of the SMEs in the companies facing today, and the other one is the lack of training and the capacity building for exercising the human rights in various countries of the Global South. So I think a lot of work needs to be done to reduce the uncertainty and fear of the private sector organization, particularly the small and medium-scale enterprises. Businesses in developing countries feel like every day they must meet a new requirement and the compliance on the HRDD, particularly focusing on the human rights, labor rights, and the environment environmental protection. Of course, many governments fully committed to UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which places a corporate responsibility on businesses. However, we all know that HRDD is an extremely complex exercise, that making value chain more transparent, inclusive, and rights-based is certainly a long exercise which will require sustained multi-stakeholder participation and collaboration. At national and international organizations level. So it is not fair for the business to feel that overnight they have transformed their value chain, are close to losing their export share, especially in Global South countries like Pakistan also, which parallel have fundamental development challenges, economic challenges, and the different social and cultural context. Certainly, the UNDP Nor CS3D asks businesses this, but perhaps business have this misperception. So we need to guide them better on low, on better on the how they can be be give to take the step in a phase way and work with the government regulators to improving the human rights protection in value chain. So this is one one side. The other side is the obviously the capacity. building and the placement of the experts of the human rights in the small-scale organization or these SMEs. So I think need— I would say that need of closer engagement with international partners and exporting countries is also very important to have engaged them as an important stakeholder in their HRDD exercise.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Harshad.

Ms.

Dutta, if you would like to.

Thank you. I think I'll pick up the comment around SMEs. We work a lot with the SMEs in Tamil Nadu in India, especially with the garment sector. Not necessarily the National Human Rights Commission, but there's— in India, we have the Department of the Medium and Small Enterprises, and that is where a lot of untapped fund goes. One, the MSMEs operate in areas which are rural, so they do not have connect with the local administration or the state administration, so they're not able to kind of go up to them and take those funds. And neither are— because most of these MSMEs are not registered, the local administration or the local department of the MSME also cannot reach out to them. So what we do is create that linkage between the local administration administration as well as the MSMEs so that a lot of untapped funds can actually be used for their development. Another thing that we're kind of looking at is a cluster-based model of development where we are trying to form district clusters across 4 districts that we're working in Tamil Nadu of MSMEs who are keen to adopt sustainable practices, who are keen to talk about human rights due diligence. And we feel that the cluster-based model is actually helping a lot because there, it's a constant sharing between the participants of that cluster, not only about knowledge, but also about resources. For example, we recently formed an association of about 10, 15 medium— actually small enterprises in Dindigul in Tamil Nadu, where the MSME person was also from. What they have done is that now that they are in touch with each other, They share the resources. For example, they have to kind of ship their orders from their district into state or any other place. They now put— pool it together and put it in the same transport so that the transport cost has come down. So we feel a cluster-based model is actually helping in sharing resources, in sharing knowledge, and that is something that can be adopted and can be contextualized very easily because the MSMEs are keen to get together. and, you know, work with each other because it is— they realize that only when they come together can they achieve and negotiate better with the brands and the companies. So, yes, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Ms. Dutta. If I may ask Ms. Rabe.

So, first, regarding the question how we involve our own employees in trade unions, unfortunately, I cannot not answer that because this engagement is the responsibility of our International Human Rights Department. And what we then do is that we have regular exchanges to make sure that we align concepts and policies on human rights risks and that we have the same approaches internally and externally. And then maybe I can also comment on what Jenny said. I completely agree that suppliers need to be empowered to be able to develop their own sustainability strategies and approaches to human rights environmental due diligence. And I think guidance should come firstly from policymakers and then we as companies can add on to that. And we are actually already doing so in our prioritized supply chains by first of all continuously encouraging transparency and an open dialogue and then offering capacity building and development to bring our partners up to the level that we need them to be.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Rabe. Professor Pampolin.

Yes, thank you. I think this is also a learning process here, because we've been talking about how we need to dialogue now for the implementation of the the EU directive on due diligence, but it would have been nice if we had had the chance to also dialogue on the elaboration of the directive. And I'll just take— well, this is why it's a learning process, so we can do this in future opportunities. And I'll just take the example again of the minimal meaningful engagement, which in the directive requires that the corporations bring relevant and comprehensive info to the table in an effective way, in an adequate way. And of course, that we've been talking about so many other things that should also be on the table when dialogue is happening. And these are things that we've known for years now that could also be there in the directive. And with that, I'll just finish maybe tackling Janie's question. to, and I'll just excuse myself to use a different hat as a consultant. And what I will do, I will not go straight to the supply chain to talk about that. I'll actually go to the bottom, to the rights holders, and get the facts right. And once I have the facts, I will then invite this supply chain to actually work together to find to build a very positive, a very good case that we could use as an example for all the others, and maybe this language will help to actually bring them together. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Professor. Unfortunately, we don't have time for more questions. I'm told that UN is very strict about the time, so we'll have to vacate this hall by 1. It's been an extremely enriching conversation for me personally, and I do hope that many of you would have found it to be useful as well. There's been a range of— we've seen that there are several fundamental underlying issues that we must look at that cannot be pushed under the carpet, that needs to be looked at. But at the same time, there are a lot that can start, is already started, and it's all already going on in terms of— be it in terms of support to SMEs, MSMEs, or training processes or legislation processes by the countries. Most importantly, I think what these legislations have done, and which is a hugely important step, is that it has put the spotlight on the companies. It's shifted the spotlight from, you know, victims of the Global South or Global North to companies to take action. It's a call for action to companies And that is, I think, an important— a hugely important step when you look at it from a Global South perspective or even a Global North perspective, be it a consumer or otherwise. So these are immensely important and huge steps that's been taken. Now, getting this to address both what is immediately doable steps as well as looking at systemic issues that underlie, that is causing these power imbalance. That cannot— I don't think the time has come to not just push it under the carpet any longer, and we need to take them head-on. And these are immensely important steps that are being taken. It's up to each one of us to make this happen because it's a huge opportunity and each one of us, be it in the Global South or Global North, I think we have an immense opportunity to start this dialogue process and not to miss out, not to forget that a lot of this conversation what we are having, we are still having it on behalf of the actual value chain, actual workers, actually affected communities. So that conversation needs to happen, if not in the UN buildings, it needs to happen elsewhere at the supply chain and even at the companies' boardrooms, and that is an important step I think we must all take. Thank you very much. Thank you all panelists for your excellent inputs. Thank you very much.