Latest / Activating Sustainability / Activating Sustainability | UN Regional Forum on Business and Human Rights 2025

Transcript

Activating Sustainability | UN Regional Forum on Business and Human Rights 2025 · Activating Sustainability

• 0:00
  Speaker A: Foreign hello and welcome to Activating Sustainability, the Anthesis podcast. I'm your host, Chris Peterson. Earlier In April, the UN hosted the 9th Regional Forum on Business and Human Rights for Latin America and the Caribbean. On today's episode, I'm speaking with Tamisa Gonzalez, Head of Business and Human Rights for Brazil and Latin America, who's based in Brazil and attended the meetings. Tamisa, welcome to the podcast. Thanks so much for joining.
• 0:30
  Speaker B: Thank you.
• 0:32
  Speaker A: So maybe to start us off, could you tell us a little bit about the event and its purpose and some other pieces of what happened?
• 0:40
  Speaker B: Yeah, of course. So basically the UN Regional Forum on Business and Human Rights for Latin America and the Caribbean is a part of a process led by the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights. It basically brings together governments, companies, civil society rights holders and also affected communities to discuss how businesses activities impact human rights and also how we can change that. So this year's event was the 9th edition and it took place in Sao Paulo, Brazil. And it provides a space to evaluate how far we've come and how much still needs to change. I think it's important to mention that it has a one of its basis, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which we call the UN GPS for short. And the UN gps, they are a global standard, although voluntary, endorsed by the UN in 2011, that establish that state states must protect human rights, companies must respect human rights, and also that there must be access to remedy when harm occurs. So when either, for example, we are going to be focusing here on how companies might impact human rights. So when it happens, what should be done to give those who were affected by the company's activity activities should go back to the status quo.
• 2:17
  Speaker A: Great. And maybe to help us kind of put some of those discussions in context, where is the kind of current state of human rights and the impact of business activities, particularly in Latin America?
• 2:29
  Speaker B: Yeah, of course, when companies, they have their activities or even their suppliers have their activities, those activities might impact the community in the surrounding areas or also the workers who are working at the company and how those negative impact might affect their human rights. So that's basically what the UN gps, they said where the companies should act, where they have to respect the human rights and what they should do to mitigate or prevent this risks or impacts. One of the reasons why the UN gps were developed is to establish those steps of how companies should act whenever they have a risk and also to act before having those impacts. So, so they need to analyze the risks and impacts that their activities might cause and then they have to understand better the result of these assessments and implement this in their process and then report their findings. So it's an ongoing process and it's really important to, as I said, mitigate and prevent any human rights risks and or impacts.
• 3:43
  Speaker A: And maybe just to unpack that a little. Are there some common areas that you see human rights issues are showing up from business activities or kind of high risk business activities that people should be paying particular attention to or sectors or commodity sources, et cetera?
• 4:00
  Speaker B: Yeah, I think we can say the high impact sectors, they tend to have more human rights violations just because it's a high packed sector and they have activities that have a higher tendency of negatively impacting people's rights rates. So when we are talking about high impact sectors, we can cite mining, energy, pulp and paper, agribusiness. So there is a number of sectors that might delve into the situation.
• 4:29
  Speaker A: Right. And what are some of the activities that tend to drive human rights issues within those or tend to show up most as we think about those impacts? Is it in terms of the hiring processes, the kind of actual mining efforts, et cetera?
• 4:45
  Speaker B: It depends a lot. Also, when we are doing human rights risk mapping or also a human rights impact assessment, we have to take into consideration the sector of the company where the activities are being carried out, and also the context of the country or the region where the activities are being carried out. Why? Because each region has their own context and that's why it's also important to have a regional forum. I'm just giving you an example why it's important to have a regional forum here in Latin America, because we have a really specific context. So I'll give an example in Brazil. Brazil by itself, it's a huge country. If we take an activity that is being carried out in the south of Brazil, the risks and impacts might be different from the same activity in the north part of the country. Even though we are talking about the same sector, the same company, but the risks and impacts might differ in a nutshell. And overall we should be looking at workers rights, especially when they are not hired directly by the company, because there is a tendency of them becoming more vulnerable and more susceptible to human rights impact. We should be thinking about traditional communities and the community around the company's operations as well, but also human rights defenders, for example, not necessarily from the communities surrounding the area, but from traditional communities. Health and safety of workers. We could be talking about land rights, land grabbing, which is a huge issue in Latin America. If the companies are respecting people's lands, the Community's right to health. So if they are polluting a river or polluting the atmosphere, how it might impact the people living around the operation of the company, it depends a lot on the sector, but also we can find a lot of risks and impacts that are similar but different depending on the sector. So if we're coming from the right perspective, the rights violations might be the same, but the fact that it's generating the violation might differ.
• 6:58
  Speaker A: Right. And appreciate the complexity of that. And maybe you had mentioned in that the idea of doing human rights risk mapping or impact assessments and just curious if you could describe that a little bit in terms of kind of what does that look like and how do we help organizations to think through all of that nuance and differentiation?
• 7:16
  Speaker B: Yes, of course. So normally the human rights risk mapping, they're more broad. It can be in a country or in the state, but it's broader than the human rights impact assessment. When we are talking about the human rights impact assessment, normally we delve into the operation and we see what impacts are happening given that operation, just as background information. When we are talking about risk, we are talking about possible and potential impacts. And when we are talking about impacts is the violations that have already happened. Our work, it's based on the aim of mitigating and preventing impacts. But sometimes when we go to the operation, some of those impacts have already happened, so we have to know how to deal with that. But when we are doing a human rights risk mapping, we are trying to understand the context of the company, how it operates and what they can do to prevent the risks that we are identifying. So it's a broader and more high level kind of work than the human rights impact assessment. But they are both really helpful for the company to understand what they're dealing with and to think ahead and plan the actions that they're going to implement to prevent and mitigate those risks and impacts happening again in the future or from even happening at all.
• 8:42
  Speaker A: Is that typically a kind of end buyer brand, et cetera, that is paying to have that done for their supply chain? Is that like a local supplier or organization that's doing that? Like where's the driver for that coming from?
• 8:57
  Speaker B: Yeah, I think it depends a lot on the maturity of the company because we know that it depends also on the budget. Right. It depends how much the company has developed before reaching out to us. And also one is looking for because depending of the situation, the demand comes from investors, for example. But also some companies, they want to start so they don't know where to Start and they reach out to us so we can help them figure that out. It depends a lot. We do have a lot of different products to offer the clients when they want to understand where they are at when it comes to human rights and how they can improve their processes. But I think the due diligence process is the most common thing. So basically we help clients identifying risks and impacts, and then with these results, we try to monitor them and then implement them in the company's process so they can better understand what they are doing and how they can improve. So basically monitor all the findings and so they can report back on both the findings, how they're dealing with the risks and impacts that were found, and also to give some answers to different stakeholders, especially rights holders, because we're also talking about an effect, a meaningful engagement with right holders. So during this process, normally we engage with rights holders and it's just fair that the company reached back to them to explain what has been done and what they are currently doing. So we always try to be really straightforward with the clients that it's a process that they need to implement when developing and applying the due diligence process when it comes to human rights.
• 10:41
  Speaker A: Fascinating. And I imagine it's one of those things that you definitely want to be ahead of those findings. Right. And value in being proactive as opposed to being surprised by them. And maybe just on that topic of surprise, like I know when you and I connected a little bit ahead of this, you had mentioned the current state of human rights in Latin America. I'm wondering if you could speak a little bit about that. I was surprised to hear how that is still. Yeah, maybe so challenging.
• 11:05
  Speaker B: Yeah, of course, it's important to contextualize a little bit the reality here in Latin America. So Latin America is a region of great beauty, rich culture, and also a lot of natural resources. Because of that, it plays a crucial role in global supply chain. We export soy, coffee, minerals, energy, timber, and other commodities and products and goods. It's important to highlight that we have a really diverse cultural background. And also Brazil, as I was saying before, plays a key role here as one of the largest exporters of agricultural commodities, minerals and energy. And what happens in Brazil has a ripple effect around the world. And however, I'm talking about Brazil here, but I'm also talking about other countries in Latin America. So global supply chains, they often depend on resources from Latin America, but unfortunately those come, or they normally come at a human cost. When local communities are displaced or silenced, for example, or when environmental protections, they are not enforced or sufficiently enforced. Latin America is the most dangerous region in the world for human rights defenders, particularly for land defenders, indigenous people and environmental activists. According to global witnesses, countries like Colombia, Mexico, Brazil and also Honduras are at the top of the list of killings of defenders year after year. Which is why I think it's really important for the UN to have a regional force for on. On business and human rights because it enables those who are from Latin America, or it can either be companies or stakeholders, or even rights holders, civil societies, et cetera, to discuss and remind us that business and human rights are not two separate conversations because they are deeply connected, especially, especially in a region where we have such a huge and really important background when it comes to global supply chains.
• 13:36
  Speaker A: Yeah, it's fascinating. I think too often, at least personally I think some of those human rights progress as for granted. And it's a kind of sobering reminder of that experience globally. I know you had mentioned that there were a number of kind of key issues and topic discussions that came out of the ninth form and curious if you'd like to share some insights on those as ones that really stood out for you.
• 13:59
  Speaker B: Yeah, so there are a couple of different key aspects that I think are important mentioning here. The first one is free prior informed consent. FPIC for those who do not know is the right recognized by the LL Convention Number 169 which is binding countries like Brazil, Mexico and Peru and I'm always going to try to mention here the Latin American countries since we are talking about the regional quorum. But the free prior informed consent is also reinforced in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. So basically these instruments, they established that indigenous and tribal people they had the right to to decide what happens on their lands and territories freely before any project begins or with all the necessary information and which is really important here. Without coercion, however, too often is treated as a formality or a checkbox. And one of the main complaints raised during the forum was that companies, they show up with the decisions already made and consultation becomes an information session and not a bilateral dialogue. For example, and again at the forum, many indigenous leaders and also different right holders, they reminded us that a FIC is not just something to do and show. It's not about giving information and is not a checkbox. It's about respecting their these people's autonomy and self determination. And it should be also about their right to say no. Oftentimes companies, they consult communities late in the process or only after decisions have already been made. And that's not real dialogue. So one of them, their main complaint was that real ethpic means listening early, often and also with respect for the power imbalance that happens when there's a multimillionaire company and a lot of vulnerable communities. On the other hand, it's one of the quotes that really had an impact on me. It's from an indigenous leader from the Kirina community who pointed out that it is important not to confuse the ethpic process with the provision of information to the territory and its community. And it's really important to consider that traditional people are people with rights who need to be considered in the genesis of the decision making process of companies as much as possible.
• 16:59
  Speaker A: Yeah, such an important thing to be digging in on. I think you'd also mentioned about the idea of remediation. So as we think about the back end of the process.
• 17:07
  Speaker B: Yeah, of course, remediation comes when the harm has already been done. For example, when people are displaced or the river that they depend on for their livelihood is poisoned, or if their lives are threatened, what can the companies do? That's where the concept of remediation comes in. I'm going to give you a little bit of a background on what the UNGP's says about remediation, which is businesses must enable access to effective remedy, whether through operational level grievance mechanisms, judicial systems or alternative channels like mediations, for example. So during the forum, people showed us that remedy is still the weakest link in the business and human rights agenda. Communities, they share their stories of waiting for years, sometimes even decades for justice. Even some cases that were highlighted there, they went to court, they won in court, and the implementation of reparation has not been done yet, or the way that it has been done was incomplete or denied altogether. So in my personal opinion, the key takeaways when it comes to remediation is that remedy should be proactive and not just reactive when it comes to companies. And companies must identify potential harms early, which means either risks and impacts and create channels for redress that are accessible, transparent and trusted and that provide communication so it hears back from the community or those right holders that have been affected to understand better their needs and how we can help them go back to status quo so before the harm happened. And remedy should also be shaped with the participation of disaffected people and not only imposed from the above. So the company should not go to the territory or those who were impacted and say, okay, that's the remedy that you're going to get. No, they should dialogue and Understand what they need to go back should the status quo, otherwise it's not an effective remedy. Here again, I think it was a really good quote. One speaker was saying that without remedy there is no justice and without justice there is no sustainability. In my opinion, it sums up really well the aim of the remedy when it comes to human rights violations. So companies, they should apply and develop a better processes for remedy when it comes to their activities violating human rights.
• 20:09
  Speaker A: Yeah, no, really helpful to get that perspective because the terms free prior and informed consent remediation sound really good, but what I'm hearing is that's falling apart in the actual execution of it. Maybe one last thing before we start shifting to wrapping up is there's been big changes globally from a kind of legislation perspective, the EU omnibus, the stop the clock, et cetera. And curious if that was part of the conversation or kind of this broader shift that we've seen to mandatory reporting, driving kind of behaviors, positive sustainable behaviors and maybe some of the delays around that, some of the shifting we're seeing in those requirements.
• 20:49
  Speaker B: Yes, I think as you said, there's a major shift happening worldwide. We are moving as a collective from voluntary commitments such as the UN GPS to mandatory human rights due diligence that will affect companies outside Europe too, especially those exporting to European markets, which happens here in Latin America. We know that in Europe there are several laws that are reshaping how companies must behave. And we can mention France's Duty of Vigilance Law, Germany Supply Chain Due Diligence act, and also the EUDR and CS Odd. I think it's important to highlight here that during the forum there was a lot of talk about the EU Commission's first Ombuds package which aims to simplify sustainability reporting rules and how it could affect Latin American countries and companies. One message was clear that even if the rules are simplified, companies still face legal, financial and reputational risks if they don't have a strong due diligence process to manage environmental and human rights impacts. The key takeaway from that perspective when it comes to EU rentalization is that companies should not step back from their sustainability efforts and they should only move forward. But more on the regional side of the discussion in Latin America we, in my opinion, we are not there yet in terms of regulation, but the conversation is moving. Key points that I wanted to highlight is that for example Brazil and Chile, they have started discussing a draft of laws on business human rights. Also Colombia and Mexico, they are moving toward national action plans on business and human rights. There is a discussion at the regional level on negotiations of Biden Treaty on Business and Human Rights within Latin American and Caribbean Initiative on responsible business conduct. So we know that any legislative process, it's slow, but I believe that momentum is building and both countries and companies, they are realizing that they have to do something about it either through legislation or implementing new process within their own operations. I believe that companies that adapt early will be better prepared for what's coming and also better prepared for any legislation that might pass.
• 23:36
  Speaker A: That's a great segue as we look to start to wrap up the call in terms of for those organizations that are looking to be proactive to get ahead of those requirements, how do you advise them to get started where it may start to gain a foothold or improve their processes?
• 23:53
  Speaker B: Yeah, I believe that a due diligence process is where they should start. So for example, they should have the public commitment on respecting human rights and then identifying and analyzing both their risks and impact, which includes also evaluating the severity of said risks and impacts and then drafting an action plan and implementing those actions into the process to prevent and mitigate the risks and impacts that were identified in the first phase of the due diligence process. They should monitor everything to see how things are done because it's an evolving process and it's constantly changing. That's why we say that the due diligence, it's an ongoing process because it changes with time. So that's why we say that every two to three years the companies should redo the process to understand better where are at at the moment and start taking action to prevent and mitigate the risk that we're identifying the new process. So I believe that the due diligence process is where companies should start. But if they do not have yet, I would say that drafting and implementing public commitment to respect human rights.
• 25:18
  Speaker A: Wonderful, Theresa. So fascinating. Can I know lots more for us to dig in and I feel like this is very timely as I know a number of organizations with tariffs and trying to rethink supply chains are contemplating do they change regions, do they change suppliers, et cetera and getting ahead of that through these kind of statements, policies, due diligence of where you are shifting. So thank you so much for the time today and all the insights. We really appreciate it now of course.
• 25:45
  Speaker B: Thank you for the invitation and for sharing your thoughts as well. It was really great. Thank you for having me and thank.
• 25:52
  Speaker A: You for listening as always. We love to hear from you on your feedback and can be reached through first.last name@anthesisgroup.com or our website and thesisgroup.com where you will also find past episodes and lots of valuable resources. Thanks again. Take care.