This is Part 2 of our anniversary series on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Part 1 looked at the way the UNGP framework works in addressing power. This blog follows on to look at what fifteen years of implementation from businesses shows us and the impact it has had.
The shift from soft law to hard law
The UNGPs were always described as a ‘floor, not a ceiling’. John Ruggie himself called for a ‘smart mix’ of voluntary and mandatory measures – his framing acknowledged that soft-law instruments alone cannot compel companies into action.
The limitations of soft law are well-documented. Voluntary frameworks rely on corporate goodwill alongside external pressure, and as a result this has led to progress in some industries but delays in others. A huge amount of energy and resources have been dedicated to designing policies, and less so to actually implementing those procedures. This implementation gap is alongside a lack of measurement into the impact this has had for workers themselves.
What has come in the fifteen years since 2011 is work toward this ‘smart mix’. France’s Duty of Vigilance Law (2017) and Germany’s Supply Chain Act (LkSG, in force from 2023) were major advances. These laws mandated human rights due diligence requirements, creating legal certainty, and began to level the playing field between companies that had invested in HRDD and those that had fallen behind. Similarly, the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) which passed with the Omnibus I amendments in February 2026, explicitly builds on the UNGP framework. This trend of proposals or commitments towards human rights due diligence-based laws and forced labour import controls can be seen globally, such as in Brazil, Japan and South Korea.
These are significant developments, placing a legal obligation on companies to conduct human rights due diligence. They also mark a shift in terms of accountability, with affected workers and communities now having formal and legal routes to seek remedy. For companies operating in scope, the question that is being asked now is not whether to do it but how to do it in practice.
What does implementation look like in practice?
Major global company benchmarks from this year which assessed hundreds of companies across multiple sectors demonstrate this persistent implementation gap between policy commitments and measurable impact for workers. Companies tend to score higher on governance and commitment indicators, but poorly when the benchmark focuses on what companies are actually doing to implement change in practice, including in recruitment, enabling workers’ rights, purchasing practices, and remedy.
The World Benchmarking Alliance Social Benchmark found that globally, only 10% of companies assess human rights risks in their supply chains. Fewer than 7% identify, assess and act on those risks, and fewer than 5% pay a living wage. The KnowTheChain Food and Beverage Benchmark found that companies across the board are lagging behind with worker-centric monitoring, meaningful remedy, responsible purchasing practices, and genuine engagement with affected rightsholders.
This lack of direct action and change for workers is compounded by the wider context for workers. The ITUC’s Global Rights Index 2026 found that globally 72% of countries deny workers access to justice, the right to strike was violated in 87% of countries, collective bargaining rights were restricted in 80% and workers suffered violence in 32% of countries. Europe and the Americas both recorded their worst average scores since 2014. It is therefore crucial that companies implement effective HRDD which is responsive to the operating reality and constraints on rights for workers.
What does good practice look like?
Through our work at CLC, we are seeing growing examples of good practice by business, and this is happening across sectors as well as geographies. The most effective HRDD programmes combine meaningful stakeholder engagement with long-term commitment to supplier relationships.
Addressing power imbalances is essential to HRDD that produces meaningful change. As the first part of this series discussed, the UNGPs are fundamentally a power analysis. The companies implementing the framework most effectively are the ones that are interrogating where leverage actually sits and implementing mechanisms to address these power imbalances.
For example, the responsible use of buying power including reasonable lead times, prices that reflect the genuine cost of decent working conditions, and collaborative development of production timelines, reduce commercial pressure. These sustainable purchasing practices crucially ensure that pressure is not passed down supply chains onto workers.
Essential to addressing these power imbalances and implementing effective HRDD is establishing an effective and trusted grievance mechanism to understand issues directly from workers in supply chains. The UNGPs set out clear effectiveness criteria for non-judicial grievance mechanisms in Principle 31. This outlines that they should be legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, transparent, rights-compatible, and a source of continuous learning. Unfortunately, grievance mechanisms remain an area where there is a significant gap between the UNGP framework and business implementation – with many company-level mechanisms falling short of these criteria in practice.
Trusted mechanisms are much more likely to be used and therefore much more likely to surface information about issues and allow companies to address risks before they escalate. Especially for migrant workers, temporary workers, or workers in contexts where retaliation is a real risk, the barriers to accessing grievance mechanisms are significant. Designing mechanisms that actually work for these workers is key to effective HRDD implementation.
How can we support you in aligning with the UNGPs?
Fifteen years in, the UNGPs have demonstrably shifted business practice but the implementation gap remains. For many companies the question is no longer whether to act, but how to close that gap. This means translating existing policy commitments into practice, as well as continuous improvement of programs to ensure they are effective and impactful for workers.
That’s what we do. We help businesses to identify, understand and address human rights risks and impacts. We ensure that the voices of affected workers, communities and stakeholders are centred through your HRDD. We conduct stakeholder engagement and facilitate workshops, with a gender responsive approach, to identify the real risks to workers in your supply chain. We work with our clients to create targeted action plans to effectively prevent, mitigate and remedy harm. And crucially we build impact measurement frameworks from the start of your HRDD, to ensure that what businesses do is measurable and leads to genuine change.
Please get in touch to hear more about our work, and how we can support your business to conduct HRDD in alignment with the UNGPs; achieving your business goals and positive social impact for workers in your supply chain.
Claire Lynch Consulting is a business and human rights advisory practice specialising in human rights due diligence, responsible purchasing practices, and supply chain accountability.
Get in touch at eloise@clairelynchconsulting.com
