Introduction

The report outlines the critical role of human rights defenders (HRDs) in safeguarding rights, exposing harmful corporate and government practices, and supporting communities. HRDs face significant risks, including intimidation, surveillance, SLAPP suits, criminalisation and killings. Women HRDs, Indigenous defenders and others experience heightened threats. Indigenous Peoples, who represent around six percent of the global population, account for up to 30 percent of attacks. Attacks remain high globally, with Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific, and Africa the most dangerous regions.

HRDs have shaped the business and human rights agenda, including the development of the Voluntary Principles and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). However, civic freedoms are in decline, with Freedom House reporting a 19-year deterioration. Recent political shifts, including actions by the US government, have weakened civic space. The report emphasises that companies’ silence increases operational, legal and reputational risks as the rule of law erodes.

The report aims to synthesise a decade of developments in global frameworks, business action and remaining challenges, focusing on international initiatives.

Purpose and focus

The report reviews international frameworks, corporate practices and tools supporting HRDs and civic freedoms. Part 1 outlines emerging norms, Part 2 highlights business actions, and Part 3 examines implementation challenges. It concludes with cross-actor recommendations.

Part 1: Emergence of the human rights defenders and business agenda

Since the mid-1990s, HRDs have exposed business-related abuses, driving global standards. The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (1998) and the UNGPs (2011) established expectations for States and companies. A turning point was the 2016 killing of defender Berta Cáceres, which accelerated global focus on risks faced by environmental and land defenders.

Two major guidance frameworks emerged:

Shared Space Under Pressure (2018), offering a decision framework for corporate action and analysis of risks, leverage and public/private interventions.

UN Working Group’s Guidance on Ensuring Respect for HRDs (2021), integrating HRDs into due diligence and remedy.

Corporate policy commitments have increased. Of 260 large companies benchmarked, 46 referenced HRDs and only nine met all three Corporate Human Rights Benchmark criteria: zero tolerance for attacks, expectations for business partners and active engagement with HRDs.

Extensive tracking initiatives document attacks. The Business & Human Rights Resource Centre recorded 6,400 attacks across 147 countries over the past decade, including 1,681 linked to mining, 1,154 to agribusiness and 792 to fossil fuels.

Guidance for investors has expanded, alongside global coalitions such as the Zero Tolerance Initiative and ALLIED. Regulatory developments include the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), though proposed amendments may weaken key protections. Updates to the OECD Guidelines and the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders +25 further strengthen expectations.

SLAPPs remain a major concern, prompting anti-SLAPP legislation in several jurisdictions and investor-led appeals to prevent corporate misuse of litigation.

Part 2: Action in support of civic freedoms and human rights defenders: Examples

Examples of corporate action remain limited. Some companies have privately and publicly supported individual HRDs, such as in Angola, Thailand and Ecuador, including financial support, public letters and courtroom testimony.

More commonly, companies act collectively on civic freedoms. This includes support for protest movements in Georgia, Poland, the United States, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Iran. Technology companies, including Ericsson, Microsoft, Google and Cloudflare, have developed tools to enhance digital safety, such as AccountGuard, digital security funds and secure authentication.

Multistakeholder initiatives have coordinated actions, including apparel sector responses in Cambodia, mining initiatives in Colombia and the Global Network Initiative’s interventions on cybercrime legislation and internet governance. Investors have engaged through public statements, direct company dialogue and expectations on investee behaviour.

Part 3: Implementation and accountability to support defenders and civic space

The report highlights ongoing implementation gaps. Effective action requires formal policy commitments, operational guidance, governance structures and cross-functional processes. Unilever and the Voluntary Principles Initiative have developed detailed implementation guidance, while ISHR’s indicators (2024) outline ten categories to assess corporate performance.

Key actions include integrating HRD risks into due diligence, consulting HRDs safely, cascading expectations to suppliers and ensuring grievance mechanisms are safe and accessible. Companies must address underlying human rights harms that give rise to attacks, including respecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights and free, prior and informed consent.

Challenges include corporate mistrust of defenders, legacies of conflict, and State-linked reprisals. Companies should avoid relying on State narratives, recognise civil disobedience as legitimate protest, and engage intermediaries where necessary.

States must strengthen protections through legislation, mandatory due diligence, anti-SLAPP laws, improved data collection and support from diplomatic missions. National Action Plans should explicitly incorporate HRDs.

Conclusions

The report argues that businesses, investors, multistakeholder initiatives and States all have roles in strengthening civic freedoms and protecting HRDs. Effective action supports rights-respecting operating environments and long-term business stability.