Attacks on the rule of law and the threat to business and human rights
John F Sherman, III
Business and human rights counselor
Bennett Freeman
Chatham House, Global Economy and Finance Program
Prof Errol Mendes
University of Ottawa
Prof Kernaghan Webb
Toronto Metropolitan University Department of Law and Business[1]
Introduction
This paper examines how attacks on the rule of law (ROL) can heighten the risk of business-related human rights abuses worldwide. For context, the UN Human Rights Council acknowledged in 2023 that human rights, democracy and the rule of law are interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars of an ‘environment in which countries can promote sustainable development, protect individuals from discrimination and ensure equal access to justice.’[2]
A strong ROL is essential for the protection and respect of human rights relating to business and remediation of business-related human rights harms, according to the authoritative 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (‘UNGPs’).[3] The UNGPs constitute the first corporate responsibility instrument unanimously endorsed by the UN and have become the authoritative global standard on business and human rights. They are referenced or incorporated in national law, multi-stakeholder standards, company policies and procedures, investor decision-making and civil society advocacy.[4]
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
The UNGPs are grounded in international treaties, conventions and instruments. They are not legally binding on their own and create no new legal obligations for either states or businesses.[5] Instead, they reflect a consensus of global society on the roles of states and business when it comes to identifying and addressing business-related human rights abuse.[6]
Pillar One of the UNGPs outlines the legal duty of States under international instruments to protect human rights from abuse by third parties, including businesses. Pillar Two sets forth the responsibility of companies to respect human rights in their operations and value chains. Pillar Three sets forth the need for greater access to remedy, both judicial and nonjudicial, by those harmed by such abuse.
The Commentary to UNGP 1 provides that States should be afforded discretion regarding the steps they should take under Pillar One to comply with international instruments attributed to them. It also observes that States have duties under the ROL, including ‘taking measures to ensure equality before the law, fairness in its application, and by providing for adequate accountability, legal certainty and procedural and legal transparency.’
Defining the rule of law
However, the UNGPs do not set out a comprehensive definition of the ROL. For that, it is necessary to look at the 2004 statement of the then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who said in his report to the UN General Assembly that:
‘the Rule of Law refers to a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions, and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness, and procedural and legal transparency.’[7]
UN policy documents, reports and resolutions reflect this definition.[8] In short, this definition goes beyond mere formulaic legal compliance to encompass fundamental principles of social justice.[9]
The relationship between the UNGPs and the ROL
The ROL is fundamental to all three pillars of the UNGPs.
- under Pillar One, the State’s duty to protect human rights, a strong ROL informs businesses about what they must and must not do in terms of respecting human rights, through means such as legislation, investigation, and adjudication;
- under Pillar Two, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, a strong ROL incentivises businesses to respect human rights as a matter of legal compliance. It can help provide certainty to both businesses and those whose human rights they might impact, even though domestic law does not limit the responsibility to respect human rights; and
- under Pillar Three, a strong ROL reinforces access to remedy by providing persons whose human rights have been abused by business with the ability to hold corporate actors accountable for, and require them to remediate, the harms they have caused or contributed to.
US domestic law
In March 2025, the International Bar Association (IBA) noted that recent ‘attacks by the US administration on the judiciary, the legal profession, and the media – each a vital pillar of democracy – have created a chilling effect both domestically and internationally.’ It called upon the US, as a global leader, ‘to uphold these fundamental principles, which are essential to democracy and the rule of law.’[10]
The two examples of attacks cited by the IBA – attacks on the judiciary and on the legal profession – raise serious issues under the UNGPs.
- Judges. Issuing excoriating public criticism of judges who ruled contrary to the US administration has created an atmosphere in which judges have become fearful for their personal safety and that of their families.[11] Doing so chills the independence of the judiciary and restricts access to judicial remedy under Pillar III.
- Lawyers. Threatening law firms with severe economic sanctions for what the US President has described as egregiously wrongful conduct in their legal services in other matters, chills the independence of law firms and their willingness to take on matters contrary to the policies of the US administration[12]. As the IBA wrote in its 2023 updated guidance on business and human rights, law firms are business organisations with a responsibility under Pillar II to respect human rights, subject to their professional ethical responsibility. The IBA noted in its 2023 guidance note that access to independent legal counsel is a fundamental right under the United Nations’ Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.[13] Such governmental actions restrict access to remedy under Pillar III and constrain the ability of firms to meet their responsibility to respect human rights under Pillar II.
In addition, rolling back the enforcement of laws and regulations that protect persons from business-related harm heightens the risk of business involvement in such harm. Three examples, among others, are:
- barring government prosecution of companies under anti-discrimination laws based on evidence of ‘disparate impact’, where a facially neutral policy or practice disproportionately harms members of a protected class – such as race, gender or national origin – even if there was no intent to discriminate. This was done for the stated purpose of emphasising merit-based decision-making and opposing racial balancing or quotas;[14]
- proposing to eliminate or revise over 60 workplace safety and wage regulations across such industries as mining, agriculture and home healthcare (on the stated grounds that such rules were outdated, duplicative or overburdened companies);[15] and
- relaxing emission regulations for coal, oil and gas production; eliminating or weakening limits on mercury and toxic air pollutants; re-evaluating and proposing to rescind key government findings about greenhouse gases as threats to public health; and reducing safeguards against pollution in water and public lands. These were done for the stated purpose of unleashing American energy, revitalizing the auto and fossil fuel industries, driving down costs, and restoring ‘common sense’ to environmental policies.[16] As the IBA noted in its Updated Guidance, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in 2022 to recognise the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, the infringement of which prevents the enjoyment of many other human rights.[17]
The US administration has been contacted for comment in regard to these matters but had not responded at the time of publication.
Undermining the international rules-based order
The UNGPs have become a vital part of the post-World War II international rules-based order, or IBRO, whose principal architect was the US. The IBRO includes a framework of political, legal and economic rules, norms and institutions that shape the international behaviour of states. It seeks to replace the uncertainty of power politics with a predictable system governed by shared rules and norms, thereby encouraging global stability, peace, cooperation and prosperity.[18]
The American Society for International Law (ASIL) has identified that this legal order ‘is now under direct assault, both at home and abroad’ as a result of US actions. In the words of the ASIL, ‘the United States has led the world in constructing an international legal framework that reflects American values, nurturing broader peace and prosperity. This retreat from international law is an unparalleled abdication of American responsibility and leaves a vacuum that will only invite chaos, conflict, and violence, ultimately weakening the United States.’[19]
Growing uncertainty
As a result, foreign governments, as well as US and foreign companies, law firms and universities, are increasingly confronted with uncertainty when considering individual transactions and agreements with the US government, as well as US companies and other institutions, due to questions surrounding consistent enforcement. As Professor Richard K Sherwin has observed, ‘Dealmaking without the rule of law to stabilize content and secure future expectations is self-deception masquerading as self-interest.’[20]
Supply chain worker impact
It is foreseeable that this retreat from the IBRO could impact the rights of workers in the global supply chain. For example, an international trade war, or even just increased uncertainties in international trade relating to dilution of the IBRO, may cause supply chain disruptions that leave supply chain workers and their families at risk of layoffs without access to savings, pensions or social safety nets, as observed during the Covid-19 supply chain disruptions.[21] This can create vulnerabilities to a range of labour and other human rights harms, including, in severe cases, modern slavery.
Sanctions
The US State Department has imposed sanctions including on officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The stated basis is that it had engaged in ‘illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel.’[22] The ICC strongly condemned the US’ actions, stating that the sanctions ‘represent an affront to the independence of the Court and the integrity of the Rome Statute system.’[23] UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk stated that ‘the sanctions against the International Criminal Court are appalling. They are totally unacceptable, because they actually undermine a fundamental piece of the international system.’[24]
Foreign aid restrictions
Finally, the US State Department has significantly reduced foreign aid programmes, including the funding of ROL activities by the American Bar Association in developing countries where such support is vital.[25] It has also shut down the International Labor Affairs Bureau (ILAB)[26] and laid off 1,300 State Department staff, particularly those working on refugees and immigration, human rights and democracy promotion. The State Department justified the ILAB action on the grounds of cost-cutting, aligning with ‘America First’ priorities and streamlining government. Programmes on labour rights, refugees and human rights were deemed non-essential or misaligned with new domestic priorities, resulting in a focus on core US interests.[27]
However, the cuts have been roundly criticised by current and former diplomats who say they will weaken US influence and its ability to counter existing and emerging threats abroad.[28]
The harmful cycle
There is a danger that other governments may follow suit, initiating a harmful cycle that could further weaken human rights protections and the effectiveness of multilateral institutions. This fragmentation threatens the unity of international law, the fight against corruption in global trade and other transnational crimes, the urgent need to address climate change and other efforts aimed at preventing human rights abuses.
This, in turn, undermines the ability of businesses to rely on a robust ROL framework to protect their interests in fostering a stable business environment, and puts them under pressure to roll back their commitments to respect human rights under the UNGPs.[29] For businesses that are still developing their human rights risk management, or that have been reticent to do so, these developments could also remove key drivers for meaningful action to prevent and address their involvement in human rights harms. These rollbacks could not only have serious implications for rightsholders impacted by business but also have significant operational, reputational and financial consequences for businesses worldwide, even if laws requiring or incentivising companies to respect human rights are pared back. Accordingly, the assumption that today’s turbulence is business-friendly is open to serious debate.[30]
The way forward
The legal profession, along with other key stakeholders, can play a crucial role in safeguarding the ROL, including its application to business and human rights. As noted above, attacks on the ROL threaten the ability and willingness of states and businesses to fulfill their human rights duties and responsibilities. International experience has demonstrated that coordinated and collaborative action among all affected stakeholders is essential to confront this threat and to advance respect for the ROL. Achieving this involves building collaborative alliances among civil society, businesses and governments dedicated to upholding the ROL, both domestically and internationally.
The authors recommend that such a broad-based coalition could consider taking steps such as the following, among others, in relation to threats to ROL around the world:
- commit to supporting the ROL as a fundamental element of democracy, prosperity, international peace and the enjoyment of human rights;
- resist the intimidation and sanctions against independent judges, lawyers and human rights defenders who work to support the ROL;
- uphold long-standing business commitments, and meet wide-ranging external and internal stakeholders’ expectations, to respect human rights according to the UNGPs in line with the ROL; and
- oppose state actions that go against the ROL and disrupt workplaces, communities and harm individuals, working collectively where appropriate.
[1] Author biographies appear at the end of the article.
[2] United Nations Human Rights Council, Human rights, democracy, and the rule of law: mutual reinforcement. A/HRC/RES/52/22 (United Nations, 3 April 2023), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org
[3] United Nations, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework. United Nations Human Rights Office. www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf
[4] Ruggie, J. G. (2020). Beyond CSR: The story of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Harvard Kennedy School Working Paper No 106). Harvard Kennedy School. www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/mrcbg/files/workingpaper_106_final.pdf
[5] Ruggie, J. G. Opening statement to the United Nations Human Rights Council (United Nations Human Rights Council, 30 May 2011), https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/files/media/documents/ruggie-statement-to-un-human-rights-council-30-may-2011.pdf
[6] Ruggie, J. G. (2013). Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights. W. W. Norton & Company.
[7] United Nations Security Council, Report of the Secretary-General, The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies, S/2004/616 p. 4 (2004), available at https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/527647?ln=en&v=pdf (2004).
[8] United Nations. (n.d.). What is the Rule of Law? United Nations. www.un.org/ruleoflaw/what-is-the-rule-of-law-archived/
[9] Ellis, M. Toward a common ground definition of the rule of law incorporating substantive principles of justice. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 72(2), 191–215, n. 26, (2010), https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/71407538/821e8d61-d7d3-4eca-b86a-bcce42d20ba9/Mark-Ellis-TOWARD-A-COMMON-GROUND-DEFINITION-OF-THE-RULE-OF-LAW-INCORPORATING-SUBSTANTIVE-PRINCI.pdf
[10] International Bar Association, 'A message from the IBA: Deep concern over the ongoing erosion of the rule of law in the United States,' (International Bar Association, 17 March 2025), www.ibanet.org/A-message-from-the-IBA
[11] See eg, Donald J Trump Truth Social Posts, 16 and 18 May 2025, referring to a judge as a ‘Radical Left Lunatic’ and to the Supreme Court as being ‘MANIPULATED BY RADICAL LEFT LOSERS’ (caps in original). The impact of similar statements on the personal safety of judges is discussed in: Smith, B., & Cooke, K. 'These judges ruled against Trump. Then their families came under attack' (Reuters, 10 June 2023), www.reuters.com/legal/government/these-judges-ruled-against-trump-then-their-families-came-under-attack-2023-06-10/; and Marimow, A. E., & Gardner, A, 'Federal judges speak out about ongoing threats in rare panel session' (The Washington Post, 6 March 2023), www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/03/06/federal-judges-threats-panel-dc/
[12] For example, the US administration asserted that one law firm engaged in ‘dishonest and dangerous activity’ in connection with the 2016 election, undermined ‘democratic elections, the integrity of our courts, and honest law enforcement,’ and ‘racially discriminates against its own attorneys and staff, and against applications.’ See 'Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP' (The White House, 6 March 2025), www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/ Similar allegations were made against three other law firms, each of whom filed suit. In each case, courts struck down the actions as unconstitutional and enjoined the government from enforcing retaliatory measures. Each judge emphasised the need to protect independent legal advocacy and prevented the White House from punishing firms for representing causes or clients critical of the administration. See New York Times, 'Trump Loses Another Battle in His War Against Elite Law Firms' (27 May 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/27/us/politics/trump-law-firms-wilmerhale.html; Wall Street Journal, 'Trump’s Campaign Against Elite Law Firms Suffers Another Defeat in Court' (23 May 2025), https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/trumps-campaign-against-elite-law-firms-suffers-another-defeat-in-court-1ab72afd; and New York Times, 'Trump’s Order Targeting Law Firm Perkins Coie Is Unconstitutional, Judge Rules' (2 May 2025), www.nytimes.com/2025/05/02/us/politics/trump-law-firms.html.
[13] Updated IBA Guidance Note on Business and Human Rights; The role of lawyers in the changing landscape (2023), p 30, www.ibanet.org/Updated-business-and-human-rights-changing-role-of-lawyers (Updated IBA Guidance).
[14] See Executive Order dated 23 April 2025, ‘Restoring Equality Meritocracy’, www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/04/28/2025-07378/restoring-equality-of-opportunity-and-meritocracy Rejecting the disparate impact standard makes it much harder to combat modern discrimination. Without this tool, only explicitly intentional discrimination by third parties, including companies, can be challenged, allowing hidden, systemic injustices to persist. Civil rights advocates warn this undoes decades of progress, shifts the burden to individual victims (making lawsuits nearly impossible for most) and disproportionately harms people of colour, women and other marginalised groups. The rollback is seen as protecting businesses at the expense of fairness, misrepresenting meritocracy and disregarding legal precedent that recognizes both intent and impact as crucial to civil rights enforcement. See, eg, National Fair Housing Alliance, 'Leading Civil Rights Groups Condemn the Latest Executive Order Attempting to Roll Back Protections' (28 April 2025) https://nationalfairhousing.org/leading-civil-rights-groups-condemn-the-latest-executive-order-attempting-to-roll-back-protections/; Potomac Law Group, 'Disparate impact under fire: What EO 14281 means for equal opportunity' (23 April 2025) www.potomaclaw.com/news-Disparate-Impact-Under-Fire
[15] Live Now Fox, 'Trump administration aims to roll back more than 60 workplace safety rules' (22 July 2025) www.livenowfox.com/news/trump-labor-deregulation-rules Labour advocates, public health experts and former safety officials argue that rolling back over 60 workplace safety protections puts millions of workers – especially women, people of colour, migrants and low-wage earners – at increased risk of injury, illness and exploitation. Removing requirements for seatbelts, construction site lighting and mine ventilation exposes workers to more accidents and fatalities. Weakening pay and overtime guarantees, as well as retaliation protections, disproportionately harms vulnerable groups and discourages reporting of abuses. Reduced enforcement powers for agencies like the Occupational Health and Safety Administration and the Mining Health and Safety Administration make it harder to hold employers accountable, likely resulting in higher rates of workplace hazards, underreporting and long-term setbacks in worker safety standards.
[16] US Environmental Protection Agency, 'EPA launches biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history' (14 March 2025) www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-launches-biggest-deregulatory-action-us-history. Critics argue that rolling back environmental regulations leads to more pollution, higher greenhouse gas emissions and increased public health risks. Communities – especially those already disadvantaged – face greater exposure to hazardous air and water contaminants, raising rates of asthma, cancer and other illnesses. Weakening climate and pollution standards can accelerates global warming and extreme weather, and increases premature deaths and hospitalisations. Reduced protections can also harm ecosystems, causing habitat destruction and biodiversity loss. Environmental justice advocates warn these changes deepen health and environmental disparities for low-income and minority communities, undoing decades of progress on pollution control and public health safeguards. See, eg, Edsall, T. B. 'Trump’s Environmental Agenda Is Actually Toxic' (The New York Times, 25 March 2025) www.nytimes.com/2025/03/25/opinion/trump-toxins-cancer-environment.html; and Wagatsuma, K. 'Implications of President Trump’s second term executive orders on global and public health' (International Journal of Public Health, 70, 1608402, 24 February 2025) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11891008/
[17] Updated IBA Guidance Note, supra, par. 11 n. 3.
[18] See, eg., Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton University Press; and Slaughter, A. M. (2004). A New World Order. Princeton University Press.
[19] American Society of International Law, 'Statement of ASIL President Mélida Hodgson: Regarding the United States and the international rule of law' (13 February 2025). www.asil.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ASIL_Statement_2025_Rule_of_Law.pdf.
[20] Sherwin, R. K., 'Deals with lawless Trump are worthless' (Project Syndicate, 4 August 2025) www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/deals-with-lawless-trump-are-worthless-by-richard-k-sherwin-2025-08
[21] See, e.g., Anner, M., Power relations in global supply chains and the unequal distribution of costs during crises: Abandoning garment suppliers and workers during the COVID-19 pandemic (International Labour Review, 161(1), 59–83, 2022), https://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12218;
[22] The White House, 'Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court' (6 February 2025) www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court/. Human Rights Watch, 'Strong push back against US sanctions on the International Criminal Court at UN Human Rights Council' (11 July 2025) www.hrw.org/news/2025/07/11/strong-push-back-against-us-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court-at-un
[23] International Criminal Court, 'Presidency of the Assembly of States Parties expresses deep concerns and objects to additional U.S. sanctions targeting ICC Elected Officials' (Press Release, 21 August 2025) https://asp.icc-cpi.int/press-releases/PR-20250821.
[24] Diyar Guldogan, 'Sanctions against International Criminal court ‘appalling’: UN Human Rights Chief' (Andalou Agency, 26 September 2025) www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/sanctions-against-international-criminal-court-appalling-un-human-rights-chief/3700394# .
[25] See: Global Legal Post, 'ABA challenges Trump administration’s diversity policies, foreign aid cuts and judicial attacks' (12 August 2025) www.globallegalpost.com/news/aba-challenges-trump-administrations-diversity-policies-foreign-aid-cuts-and-judicial-attacks-672051563; and ABA Journal, 'ABA Center for Global Programs seeks to pivot, expand work in wake of USAID cuts' (9 April 2025) www.abajournal.com/web/article/center-for-global-programs-seeks-to-pivot-expand-work-in-wake-of-usaid-cuts
[26] According to the Economic Policy Institute, 'Cutting ILAB grants leaves vulnerable workers around the world at risk without access to ILAB-funded programs, undermines our ability to monitor foreign governments’ compliance with U.S. trade agreements, and ensures that U.S. workers will compete on an uneven international playing field fueling a race to the bottom in the global economy.' Economic Policy Institute, 'Department of Labor terminates grants that fight international human trafficking, promote labor rights' (27 March 2025) https://www.epi.org/policywatch/department-of-labor-terminates-grants-that-fight-international-human-trafficking-promote-labor-rights/. See also, Politico, 'Labor groups reel from DOL’s international cancellations' (31 March 2025) www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-shift/2025/03/31/labor-groups-reel-from-dols-international-cancellations-00259991.
[27] US Department of State Press Briefing, 16 July 2025, www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-july-16-2025
[28] PBS NewsHour, 'State Department is firing over 1,300 employees under Trump administration plan' (11 July 2025) www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/state-department-is-firing-over-1300-employees-under-trump-administration-plan.
[29] Bloomer, P., & Freeman, B. 'Staying the course: Holding US companies to human rights commitments in turbulent times' (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 9 July 2025) www.business-humanrights.org/en/blog/staying-the-course-holding-us-companies-to-human-rights-commitments-in-turbulent-times/
[30] Sonnenfeld, J., Tian, S., & co-authors, 'Is MAGA going Marxist and Maoist? Trump’s assault on free-market capitalism' (Fortune, 12 August 2025) https://fortune.com/2025/08/12/maga-marxist-maoist-trump-assault-free-market-capitalism-socialism/
Biographies:
John F Sherman, III is a renowned expert in the field of business and human rights, with a particular focus on its intersection with the practice of law.
After graduating from Harvard Law School, John clerked for a federal judge, practised law at a private law firm in Boston and then joined the legal department of an energy company now called National Grid. He retired in 2008 as its deputy general counsel.
After retiring from National Grid, John joined the UN mandate team of late Harvard Kennedy School Professor John Ruggie, working as a core member to help shape and draft the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). In 2011, John played a key role in establishing The Shift Project, Ltd., chaired by Prof Ruggie, which has become the leading centre of expertise on the UNGPs. John served as Shift's general counsel and senior advisor until 2022.
John joined the IBA in 2005 and served as co-chair of its CSR Committee. He acted as Prof Ruggie’s liaison with the IBA and managed several pilot projects for Prof Ruggie’s UN mandate on company-community dispute resolution in Africa and Latin America. He lobbied for the OECD to fully adopt the UNGP concept of human rights due diligence. Recently, John was a key drafter of the IBA's Guidance for Bar Associations on Business and Human Rights in 2015 and 2024, as well as its Guidance for Lawyers on Business and Human Rights in 2016 and 2023.
John has become a leading global thought leader on the relationship between business and human rights and the practice of law. He has spoken and lectured extensively around the world and authored numerous articles and book chapters published by the IBA, the ABA and others, on these and other related topics.
Bennett Freeman. Over the last 25 years of a four decade-plus career, Bennett Freeman has worked at the intersection of governments, international institutions, multinational corporations, responsible investors, and NGOs to establish global standards for corporate responsibility and accountability. A pioneering leader in the business and human rights arena, he has played critical roles in founding and building multi-stakeholder initiatives and coalitions to protect human rights and labour rights around the world.
Freeman is an Associate Fellow of Chatham House in the Global Economy and Finance Program, where he focuses on multinational corporations and global governance, and a Senior Fellow at the Institute of International Affairs at the University of California at Berkley. A frequent university lecturer, international conference speaker and media commentator, Freeman consults for major corporations, foundations, and NGOs through Bennett Freeman Associates LLC. He has served on two dozen boards and advisory councils for organisations working on labour and human rights, natural resource governance and corruption.
As Senior Vice President for Sustainability Research and Policy at Calvert Investments from April 2006-April 2015, he led its environmental, social and governance research for over 40 mutual funds, developed innovative new investment themes, and directed its shareholder advocacy and public policy initiatives.
Freeman served as a Clinton presidential appointee in three positions at the US Department of State. As Deputy Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor from April 1999-January 2001, Freeman directed bilateral human rights diplomacy and led the year-long multi-stakeholder dialogue and negotiations to develop and launch the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights as the global human rights standard for oil and mining companies. He directed the diplomacy and historical research related to Holocaust-era assets as Senior Advisor to Under Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs Stuart Eizenstat from April 1997-March 1999. He served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and chief speechwriter for Secretary of State Warren Christopher from April 1993-January 1997.
Freeman was Manager-Corporate Affairs for GE in the corporate headquarters and corporate government relations office from February 1985-April 1993. He began his career as a presidential campaign speechwriter and aide for former Vice President Walter Mondale from February 1982-November 1984.
Freeman earned an AB in History from Berkeley in 1979 and an MA (Honours) in Modern History from Oxford in 1981.
Prof Errol Mendes is a lawyer, author, professor and has been an adviser to governments, corporations, civil society groups and the United Nations. He has acted as a member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and as a Senior Advisor in the Privy Council Office of the Government of Canada. He has also been a Visiting Professional at the International Criminal Court, a Visiting Fellow at Harvard Law School and a Visiting Scholar at Oxford University.
His areas of expertise include private and public sector governance law, international business law, public international law and constitutional law. He has taught at law schools across Canada and is presently a full professor of Law at the University of Ottawa. He was a Commissioner on the Ontario Human Rights Commission from 2009 to 2019 and National President of the Canadian Section of the International Commission of Jurists since 2014. He is the author, co-author or editor of eleven books in his area of expertise. He was invested into the Order of Ontario on 20 January 2016. On 25 May 2016, he was awarded one of the highest honors of the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Law Society Medal. In November 2019, he was appointed as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.
Prof Kernaghan Webb holds Bachelor’s, Master's and Doctorate degrees in Law, and is an Associate Professor in the Toronto Metropolitan University Department of Law and Business. He is also the Founding Director of the Toronto Metropolitan University Institute for the Study of Corporate Social Responsibility. In that capacity, Prof Webb has spearheaded the current exploration of the viability and feasibility of a Global Rule of Law Coalition. Prof Webb's extensive law and regulation research and publications have among other things been cited and quoted by the Supreme Court of Canada. Prof Webb has also been employed by or advised governments and inter-governmental bodies, and he has been on the board of directors or otherwise assisted private sector, civil society organisations on regulatory matters. Of particular relevance to this paper, Prof Webb was appointed Special Advisor to the UN Global Compact regarding the development of the ISO 26000 social responsibility standard. He has played leadership roles in the development of international and national social and economic standards and received international and national recognition for his leadership.