Empirical studies indicate that business compliance with the UK Modern Slavery Act is disappointing, but they struggle to make sense of this phenomenon. This article offers a novel framework to understand how business organizations construct the meaning of compliance with the UK Modern Slavery Act. Our analysis builds on the endogeneity of law theory developed by Edelman. Empirically, our study is based on the analysis of the modern slavery statements of 10 FTSE 100 (Financial Times Stock Exchange 100 Index) companies in the food and tobacco sector, backed by interviews with business, civil society, and public officers. We offer a dynamic model that draws attention to the role of compliance professionals in framing ambiguous rules and devising a variety of organizational responses to modern slavery law. Contrary to extant research that tends to praise organizations for going “beyond compliance”, our study underlines the risks of managerialization of modern slavery law, whereby merely symbolic structures come to be associated with legal compliance, even when they are ineffective at tackling modern slavery.

After the endorsement of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) by the Human Rights Council on 16 June 2011, 15 March 2024 marked another milestone for transnational corporate governance. That day, a qualified majority of the member states of the European Union (EU) voted in favour of the Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD) setting human rights and environmental obligations for large companies in their global value chains.¹ The CSDDD is the first region-wide due diligence legislation, yet it is also a political compromise among EU member states, which civil society and business have been watching closely. This piece explains the main elements of the CSDDD and outlines some of its implications beyond the EU.

In September 2016, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court issued a Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritization in which it indicated that the Office will now ‘give particular consideration to prosecuting Rome Statute crimes that are committed by means of, or that result in … the destruction of the environment, the illegal exploitation of natural resources or the illegal dispossession of land’. Given that these criminal actions often involve corporate actors, the policy paper has raised expectations among those campaigning for increased scrutiny of the human rights impacts of business activity. The article evaluates the significance of the policy paper for the field of business and human rights. It does so by pointing to the current deficiencies of both international criminal law and international human rights law regarding business accountability, and by assessing whether, and if so how, the new policy paper can tackle those deficiencies. It also explores other areas of business activity the policy paper could have covered but did not. It concludes that, despite its limitations, the policy paper holds considerable potential from a business and human rights perspective.

Infants are vulnerable consumers and highly depend on dietary proteins for growth and development during their first months of life. Infant formula (IF) and follow-on formula (FOF) have been developed to meet these requirements, although few protein sources are currently allowed to be used. At the same time, allergies to these available protein sources are becoming more frequent. There is thus a need to explore alternative protein sources for infant nutrition. One alternative could be quinoa, which is a pseudocereal that is naturally free from gluten and has a high protein content and quality. This review assessed the composition, nutritional properties, and applicability of quinoa proteins for IF and FOF as well as the legal framework for their use in the European Union (EU). The protein quality of isolated quinoa proteins (IQPs) is relatively high compared with other plant-based proteins like rice. Besides, during the protein isolation process, unfavorable compounds are mostly removed, ensuring that the final product can comply with the maximum residue concentrations allowed. Overall, IF and FOF are strictly regulated under the Foods for Specific Groups (FSG) Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 and more research is needed before the introduction of IQP in such products is considered, but this review shows it has several promising features that warrant further investigation.

This article conceptualizes corporate accountability under international law and introduces an analytical framework translating corporate accountability into seven core elements. Using this analytical framework, it then systematically assesses four models that could be used in a future business and human rights (BHR) treaty: the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights model, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights model, the progressive model, and the transformative model. It aims to contribute to the BHR treaty negotiation process by clarifying different options and possible trade-offs between them, while taking into account political realities. Ultimately, the article argues in favour of the BHR treaty embracing a progressive model of corporate accountability, which combines ambitious development of international law with realistic prospects of state support.

This article delves into the deep seabed mining regime under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) with a view to inform the negotiating process of the proposed business and human rights (BHR) treaty. It highlights points of convergence and divergence between the two regulatory regimes and explores how the BHR treaty negotiations could draw from the deep seabed mining regime with regard to the responsibility and liability of states and corporations. In particular, it suggests that a BHR treaty could incorporate some of the arrangements of UNCLOS to address state obligations and direct corporate human rights obligations, both of a general and specific nature, including the obligation to carry out human rights due diligence. The article also proposes a mechanism of responsibility and liability of states and corporations under the future BHR treaty going beyond UNCLOS and embracing residual liability for home and/or host states.