The rapid evolution of technology – and its deep interconnection with all aspects of our lives – indisputably creates new opportunities, increases efficiency, and provides opportunities to maximise human potential. But this pace of development comes with significant human rights risks, with particular impact on some of the most vulnerable in society, including women, minorities and children, that tech companies must identify and mitigate. Despite booming profits and this growing influence, however, social media, software, surveillance, telecommunications, and other tech-related companies are behind in demonstrating full commitment to transparency and a proactive willingness to address the wide range of harms and human rights abuses associated with their products and services. A decade of company outreach and analysis by the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (the Resource Centre) highlights that better practices by the sector are possible: robust human rights due diligence, in particular, provides a key pathway to arresting this trend of abuse by this critical sector.

Figures correct as downloaded for analysis from the Resource Centre database on 15 January 2024

Context

As tech becomes ever more ubiquitous in our societies, states are making concerted efforts to better address and prevent harms by the sector. The European Union (EU) has been at the forefront with initiatives like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Digital Services Act (DSA), the Digital Markets Act (DMA), and initiatives such as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA). These have sought to establish mechanisms for accountability and company responsibilities based on business and human rights principles.

However, our company response data suggests the sector is out of step with rising expectations of its human rights responsibilities. Over the past 10 years, we’ve engaged with hundreds of tech companies, including actors in the artificial intelligence, social media, spyware and telecommunication sectors, among others. Our analysis reveals a troubling trend: despite the explosive growth and profits of the tech sector– in some cases exceeding the GDP of many countries in the Global South – allegations of human rights abuse are on the rise.

Who is affected by abuse?

Seventy percent of the response requests concern allegations affecting vulnerable groups such as migrants, children, workers, women, LGBTQI+ individuals and human rights defenders, among others, demonstrating the tech sector’s disproportionate effect on groups already at risk.

By failing to meet basic transparency standards in providing responses to these allegations, tech companies are falling at the first fence of corporate accountability. This approach is unlikely to meet the requirements of the wave of legislation being developed to regulate the tech sector, and which demand transparency as a regulatory cornerstone. The rising trend of mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence is a case in point; companies across all sectors, including tech, are increasingly mandated to proactively assess and mitigate harms linked to their operations and supply chains. This allows companies to know and show they understand and will address their impacts. In the case of the tech sector, it also places the burden of keeping up with the industry’s fast pace on the companies themselves, so that corresponding human rights risks can be proactively identified and managed in line with this speed, rather than remedied by issue-specific regulation after the harm. But a key component of due diligence is stakeholder engagement – which requires tech companies to be responsive to allegations of abuse. The writing is on the wall: the sector will be expected to adopt an increasingly robust duty of care for human rights, and tech companies will have to take meaningful, positive steps to safeguard human rights through continuous risk assessment and management.

In focus: Tech & conflict

Nearly a third (30%) of the invitations to respond to allegations involved technology companies in conflict-affected zones, including in respect of Myanmar, Israel’s war on Gaza, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and Nigeria, among others. Four in five response requests relating to conflict-affected areas were sent to tech companies headquartered in the Global North.

Tech companies, often based far from where conflict is taking place, can significantly impact human rights in conflict-affected zones through their products and services. Disturbing allegations covered in our monitoring have included social media platforms contributing to suppressing critical and dissident narratives, or amplifying hate speech that incites violence against marginalised and oppressed groups. The companies consequently are increasingly facing pressure to demonstrate their commitment to human rights, which includes conducting heightened human rights due diligence. Our data shows tech companies are largely failing to publicly demonstrate measures relating to heightened due diligence.

International bodies including the UN and the OECD have been clear that heightened human rights due diligence is required in these circumstances. This is because the likelihood and severity of impact due to corporate missteps can be catastrophic and irremediable -- as evidenced by cases in Myanmar, Ethiopia and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Companies should be more transparent about their mitigation of risks in such volatile contexts, not less. Yet only 43% of the allegations related to human rights harms during times of conflict received a response.

Speed dial: Which companies are most often linked to allegations?

Over the 10 year period, the following companies appeared in our response requests more times than any others: Meta (43), Amazon (24), Google (19), X Corp. (formerly Twitter) (18), Samsung Electronics (16), Uber (14), Apple (13), Siemens (13), Microsoft (12) and Telegram (11). With a combined total of 183 requests to respond to allegations linked to their policies, operations, products or services, these 10 companies accounted for a quarter (25%) of all invitations to tech companies during this period.

These 10 tech firms are among the largest and most influential companies in the world. They have immense resources and the potential to make enormously positive contributions to human rights, but this requires genuine leadership and commitment. For example, Microsoft's market capitalization in January 2024 alone exceeded US$3trillion, surpassing the combined gross domestic product (GDP) of South Africa (nearly US$400billion) and Brazil (nearly US$1.92trillion)— the biggest economies in Africa and Latin America. The immense influence that comes with such economic might demands better practice from these firms, and stronger regulations to combat power imbalances and ensure accountability.

Moreover, nine out of the top 10 companies are headquartered in Global North countries. Our analysis reveals that 77% of the tech companies linked to abuses are headquartered in Global North countries, while 22% are headquartered in countries of the Global South. This stark disparity shows decision-making processes impacting people’s human rights are predominantly taking place in the Global North.

Better practice: Human rights policies and public commitments

Despite these problematic trends, better practices in the tech sector do exist. These include developing business codes of conduct, adopting human rights policies and publishing transparency reports.

Companies which demonstrate these better practices are more responsive to questions about human rights issues. Tech companies with a business code of conduct responded to 44% of our requests. Companies with transparency reports (54%) and human rights policies (62%) record still higher response rates. In contrast, companies which haven’t implemented any of these practices have a much lower response rate - only 36% of requests to such companies without these policy and reporting commitments in place received a response.

Key benchmarking initiatives such, as the World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA), Ranking Digital Rights, and KnowTheChain, have consistently pointed to the need for improvement in tech companies’ policy commitments. Ensuring quality policy practices are in place is a first step towards companies effectively identifying, mitigating and addressing human rights harms.

Furthermore, tech companies’ participation in multistakeholder and other international initiatives such as the United Nations Global Compact (UN Global Compact) and the Global Network Initiative (GNI) also correlates with higher responsiveness to human rights concerns. For instance, the 113 response requests we made to GNI members garnered a 60% response rate compared with the overall response rate of 48%. Similarly, the 280 response requests made to UN Global Compact members had a 65% response rate. In contrast, companies that are not members of either initiative recorded a significantly lower response rate (37%).

These findings underscore the critical importance of the tech sector publicly committing to respect human rights and adopting comprehensive human rights policies. Such commitments help ensure responsible business conduct by demonstrating a genuine willingness to address human rights concerns.

Intentional inclusion of gender and intersectional lenses in publicly available company policies is a  critical first step to preventing and remedying gendered impacts experienced by tech company workers, users of tech products and services, and people who have technologies imposed on them, such as refugees. This will further pave the way for carrying out gender-sensitive human rights due diligence, and collaborating more meaningfully with feminist and LGBTQI+ groups. However, among the top 10 tech companies contacted by the Resource Centre (Meta, Amazon, Google, X Corp., Samsung Electronics, Uber, Apple, Siemens, Microsoft and Telegram), only three companies have publicly committed to operating in accordance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW): Meta, Microsoft and Samsung Electronics.

Three of the top 10 companies make no mention of the words “gender” or “women” in their general human rights policy or business code of conduct: Apple, Microsoft and Telegram. It is concerning that the two companies which have failed to respond to any of our response requests over the last decade - Apple and Telegram - neither commit to respecting  the CEDAW nor mention the words “gender” or “women” in their policies. Telegram lacks any publicly available policies that could be used to conduct this analysis.

Moving forward

Addressing these challenges requires the tech sector to improve its transparency, collaboration, and meaningful engagement with relevant stakeholders including human rights defenders, impacted communities, academics, investors, policymakers and governments. Some companies are already showing this is possible, and more must follow suit if the sector is to comply with its own rapid pace of development, and with the increasing human rights obligations in a fast-evolving regulatory landscape. Companies can start by proactively responding to requests from civil society for information on the steps they are taking to address human rights harms and concerns, thereby enhancing transparency in communications—a cornerstone of their responsibility to respect human rights through their human rights due diligence processes.

Recommendations

Author: Danny Rayman