ASEAN

Business & Human Rights: Measures for the Global South

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights call for a “smart mix of measures — national and international, mandatory and voluntary — to foster business respect for human rights”. This was also the theme of the 13th UN Forum on Business and Human Rights in Geneva.

Businesses are powerful and influential drivers of economic growth and development. Their impact extends far beyond mere profits — shaping how people work, how communities either thrive or struggle, and how the planet is sustained. But with that power comes responsibility. And responsibility without accountability risks being nothing more than a branding strategy.

As global scrutiny grows around corporate behaviour, particularly in the face of climate change, headline-grabbing labour exploitation, and widening inequality, the focus has shifted. It is no longer enough for businesses to solely engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) through philanthropy. Corporate accountability must take centre stage, as it is critical to upholding the rights and dignity of rightsholders and stakeholders affected by business operations.

The 2011 United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) laid the foundation for responsible business conduct through the “protect, respect, and remedy” framework. It calls for States to consider a “smart mix of measures — national and international, mandatory and voluntary — to foster business respect for human rights”. This was also the theme of the 13th UN Forum on Business and Human Rights in Geneva, where we heard a range of perspectives on how effective measures should be designed and enforced. Our conversations with individuals working across different areas of this field raised concerns about whether regulatory templates from the Global North are truly compatible with the realities of the Global South. While this discourse has no one-size-fits-all model, it is clear to us that there still exists a disconnect between the ideals of the Global North and the realities of the Global South. 

While most multinational corporations are headquartered in the Global North, the Global South, particularly Southeast Asia, hosts most of their labour-intensive production operations. Several Southeast Asian countries serve as critical supply chain hubs across industries such as, among others, electronics, rubber, palm oil, garments, and automotive parts. Innumerable products emerging from these sectors have become deeply embedded in our everyday lives.

Yet, this is also the region where the highest risks of human rights violations persist, highlighted by several headlines in the last few years. These risks are compounded by mounting pressure across global supply chains. Consider the European Union (EU)’s proposed Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which requires businesses to monitor and address human rights risks throughout their global supply chains. This would have profound implications for Southeast Asian suppliers, many of whom operate in environments with weak enforcement and scarce resources.

Voluntary measures alone have proven inadequate in Southeast Asia, and the initiatives often lack the necessary bite to drive meaningful change. Many business enterprises choose superficial actions over systemic reform. Their efforts are sometimes merely a “tick-the-box” exercise to meet the bare minimum of expectations or requirements under the law. On the other hand, while mandatory regulations are seen as necessary, they are rendered ineffective without strong enforcement from the State, leading to legal loopholes or burdensome compliance costs for smaller businesses or small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Poorly implemented regulations can also overwhelm small businesses. Hence, a smart mix of measures — based on a balanced, inclusive, and rights-centred approach — is necessary to foster genuine, sustainable change.

But what would a smart mix of measures look like in the Global South, where supply chains are concentrated, yet regulatory influence primarily originates from the Global North? The truth is: there is no silver bullet.

Several countries in Southeast Asia lack the legal framework for human rights due diligence (HRDD). Legislating a dedicated Human Rights Act or Business and Human Rights Act would be the first measure to establish binding obligations for businesses to identify, assess, prevent, mitigate, report, and address adverse human rights impacts throughout their operations and supply chains. Alternatively, HRDD requirements could be embedded within existing laws relating to labour or the environment, to address the existing core issues. These legislations must also protect human rights defenders and communities that are adversely affected, many of whom face constant intimidation and harassment, including through Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs).

SLAPPs are designed to burden human rights defenders and local communities with lengthy and costly legal proceedings, thus deterring them from advocating for their rights or challenging corporate misconduct. Anti-SLAPP legislation is essential to ensure businesses are held accountable for their actions and not shielded by aggressive legal strategies. In tandem, labour laws and enforcement capacity must be strengthened, effective operational and external grievance mechanisms and remedy systems must be established, and legal support and whistleblower protection for rightsholders must be offered.

In addition, States must ensure that affected communities have access to justice and effective remedies when harmed by business practices. For example, amending the law to allow affected communities the legal standing to bring action against offending businesses. Timeliness is also a critical factor in judicial mechanisms, where priority should be given to cases involving immediate harm or risks to the environment and communities to ensure that interventions are swift. This approach can help prevent or mitigate further damage, halt harmful activities in time, and enable the provision of effective remedies or restoration efforts without unnecessary delays. These reforms would go a long way in impacting the lives and dignity of countless people.

Second, current sustainability reporting frameworks are too often tick-the-box exercises. Sustainability, and environmental, social and governance (ESG), reporting are already required for public-listed companies in Malaysia, but they often lack depth, in our experience. Human rights and environmental rights must go beyond glossy reporting and tackle real, on-the-ground issues. States should require regular non-financial human rights reporting that is substantive and impact-driven, particularly for companies in high-risk sectors. It would promote greater transparency and accountability and push business enterprises beyond compliance into proactive risk mitigation.

Third, integrating human rights and environmental considerations into public procurement should be a criterion to direct public spending toward responsible businesses with ethical conduct. This extends to government-linked companies (GLCs), requiring them to also implement HRDD. Imagine if every company bidding for a government contract had to prove that no forced labour and child labour are practised, working conditions are safe for the employees, and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is obtained from indigenous peoples where the business operations may take place — this would shift the incentive structure for thousands of businesses overnight.

Voluntary initiatives such as capacity building, training, and human rights impact assessments should also not be left to goodwill alone. States could consider providing incentives, such as tax reliefs, subsidies, or public recognition programmes, to encourage uptake of voluntary human rights assessments and reporting, especially among SMEs. These measures would help businesses to gradually integrate human rights considerations into their operations without imposing undue financial or administrative burdens. These “soft” requirements can later evolve into minimum mandatory standards.

For the Global South, especially countries like Malaysia, a smart mix must be inclusive and adaptive. In the words of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, during the Forum, “We urgently need that leadership, from governments, from civil society and from business, to find solutions that are sustainable, equitable and just. For the interests of all, not just for the privileged few.”

The solution is neither quick nor simple, but it is within reach. Achieving it will require a strategic combination of binding regulations, targeted incentives, and sustained capacity building to pave a more pragmatic and realistic path towards meaningful compliance and lasting impact. The Global South does not need to wait for the Global North to dictate the pace or direction of progress. Instead, countries in the region, or collectively as ASEAN, must take ownership and craft frameworks grounded on their economic and social realities. This means ensuring strong enforcement, fostering meaningful engagement with rightsholders and stakeholders, and placing human dignity at the centre of all efforts.

A smart mix goes beyond simply balancing hard and soft law. It calls for a reimagining of development — one that prioritises the wellbeing of both people and the planet.

*Umavathni Vathanaganthan is COO at the Collective of Applied Law and Legal Realism (CALR), a non-profit organisation that focuses on business and human rights and ASEAN human rights advocacy. Toh Nyon Nyin is a human rights project consultant working with Malaysian and Southeast Asian civil society organisations. Michael Cheah Ern Tien is an Advocate and Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya practicing in AmerBON, Advocates.

The authors were supported by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom´s Human Rights Hub to participate in the 13th UN Forum on Business and Human Rights from 25 to 27 November 2024 in Geneva, Switzerland.