EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Southeast Asia’s race to scale up renewable energy (RE) reflects both the enormous opportunity of the region’s shift to renewable energy – most countries have announced ambitious long-term clean energy goals – and the human rights and environmental risks presented by a transition that is not just. Against the background of Vietnam’s Just Energy Transition Partnership and announcement of its 8th Power Development Plan which seeks to reshape its energy system, six climate activists have recently been arrested and imprisoned there on purportedly false charges. Land and water-intensive RE projects, such as the Laguna Lake floating solar project in the Philippines, are raising concerns among communities who will suffer harms when operations begin. In cases like these, the crucial role of RE companies in identifying and mitigating the human rights risks of their projects, as well as their role in effecting a transition that is not only fast, but also fair, is increasingly clear. As this briefing page sets out, however, most RE companies operating in the region are doing so without robust human rights policies in place – missing a foundational step to ensure RE projects are developed and deployed in a rights-respecting manner.

For this analysis, the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (the Resource Centre) looked at 12 RE companies operating and developing wind and solar projects in Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia. We examined their human rights policies and asked all 12 companies to respond to a survey.

Only two of the 12 companies (B. Grimm and ACEN) responded substantively to the survey; one additional company (Vena Energy) merely referred to its website and company reports.

This snapshot analysis paints a picture of limited transparency by the sector to date, but also identifies policy gaps where these documents were otherwise available. Concerningly, only four companies (B. Grimm, ACEN, Gulf Energy and Vena Energy) have published substantial commitments to respect internationally recognised human rights in their operations and only two companies (B. Grimm and Gulf Energy) proactively identify their human rights risks and thereafter assess and prioritise such risks.

While the analysis set out below also highlights relative better practice where this is evident, the existence of basic policy commitments to human rights is critical to ensuring that the regional shift to renewable energy is able to reflect the core principles for a just energy transition: commitment to the corporate duty of care for human rights and the environment; fair negotiations for workers and communities; and shared prosperity for all.  The sector has a considerable gap to close in this respect.

Key findings 

On the whole, companies appeared generally better prepared to address basic worker-related issues: eight companies (BCG, GEC, B. Grimm, Gulf Energy, ACEN, Vena Energy, Solarvest and TNB Engineering) publicly commit to disclose key data regarding their performance on worker health and safety. Nine companies (GEC, B. Grimm, Gulf Energy, ACEN, Solar Phils., Vena Energy, Solarvest, Plus Xnergy and TNB Engineering) have policies indicating the presence of mechanisms through which workers can raise complaints or concerns. Nevertheless, only six companies (B. Grimm, Gulf Energy, ACEN, Vena Energy, Plus Xnergy and TNB Engineering) have policy commitments in place to respect labour rights in general, and only four of those (B. Grimm, ACEN, Vena Energy and Plus Xnergy) explicitly commit to ILO core conventions, highlighting room for improvement.

Other key findings include: 

• Four companies (ACEN, B. Grimm, Solarvest and TNB Engineering) mention they have a programme for access to RE in the communities in which they operate.
• Eight companies (BCG, GEC, B. Grimm, Gulf Energy, ACEN, Vena Energy, Solarvest and TNB Engineering) disclosed key data regarding worker health and safety performance.
• None of the surveyed companies have a policy on protection of HRDs or environmental HRDs.
• Only two companies (B. Grimm and ACEN) claim to integrate their findings on human rights risks and impacts into relevant internal functions and processes to take appropriate actions to prevent, mitigate or remediate salient human rights risks.

These findings reveal considerable opportunity for improvement for the RE companies operating in the region, whose projects are likely to only grow in scope and scale in the coming years. This means human rights risks are also likely to expand, along with the opportunity to contribute proactively to a rights-respecting transition. This will depend on strong policy foundations in order to ensure better practice. As set out in the Resource Centre’s research, this approach can contribute to beneficial outcomes for all and help build public trust in the idea of a just transition. The alternative is rising resistance by communities, costly legal challenges and project delays, and reputational damage to companies developing critical RE projects around the world.

Ensuring basic human rights policy commitments are in place is the first step in ensuring the essential transition to renewable energy in Southeast Asia is not only fast, but also fair.

Key recommendations to RE companies in Southeast Asia

• Publicly commit to respect all internationally recognised human rights, including fundamental rights at work outlined in the eight ILO core conventions (such as the right of all workers to form and join a trade union of their choice and to bargain collectively without intimidation, harassment, retaliation and violence) across all operations, with board-level oversight on the implementation of such commitments.
• Conduct robust human rights and environmental due diligence to identify, prevent, mitigate human rights risks, and provide remedy where harm occurs.
• Publicly commit to respect IPs’ rights in line with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, centring their right to give or withhold their Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC); regularly engage with legitimate representatives of communities affected by business activities; and respect land rights of legitimate tenure rights-holders, considering the land-intensive nature of RE projects.
• Adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards attacks against HRDs, including threats, violence, surveillance, and physical or legal attacks, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs).
• Support access and affordability of renewable energy in the communities in which RE companies operate; and support government policies and actions to address local energy access challenges.

INTRODUCTION

Southeast Asia is one of the most vulnerable regions to the impacts of climate change. It is crucial for Southeast Asian nations to help curb carbon emissions by transitioning to renewable energy (RE). Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have set a collective RE capacity target of 35% of the energy mix by 2025. The region is closing in on its goal, having reached 32% of its total capacity sourced from renewables. In addition to the large hydropower base in the region, ASEAN only needs to build 17 GW of utility-scale wind and solar capacity to meet its 2025 target.

Plans to transition to RE in the region are also underway. Backed by a Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) worth over US$15 billion, Vietnam leads in operating utility-scale solar and wind capacity with 19 GW, followed by Thailand and the Philippines, each contributing 3 GW.

However, the transition to RE is not free from human rights harms. In Vietnam, the “just” component of the transition has been missing. Over the last few years, six climate leaders – some of whom were involved in campaign efforts to shift away from coal – have been arrested and imprisoned on false charges. These attacks severely impact meaningful participation from civil society in the implementation of the country’s JET-P. In the Philippines, a proposed floating solar project in Laguna Lake, which will cover 2,000 hectares of water, is drawing concern from fisherfolk. Groups worry the solar project will further shrink fishing grounds, reduce catches and pose hazards to communities if solar panels become untethered during strong typhoons and rising water levels.

Renewable energy companies have a crucial role to play in ensuring human rights are respected in the energy transition. Given the upward trajectory of RE deployment in Southeast Asia, robust human rights policies are imperative as a first step to deliver a just transition.

The Resource Centre has published three editions of the Renewable Energy & Human Rights Benchmark (RE Benchmark) since 2020, ranking the human rights performance of key publicly-traded global RE companies in the wind and solar sectors. The third edition of the RE Benchmark found some progress among companies on high-level human rights policies, along with significant shortcomings in efforts to address salient human rights issues in the sector.

This briefing provides a snapshot analysis of key challenges and gaps in human rights policies adopted by RE companies operating and developing wind and solar projects in Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines.

SCOPE & METHODOLOGY

The Resource Centre invited RE companies operating in the region to participate in a survey concerning human rights policies that are intended to prevent or mitigate potential adverse impacts as the sector scales up rapidly in the coming period. The survey was supplemented by desk research on publicly available corporate policies.

Companies included in the survey:

1) are based in or have considerable operations in the top four countries in the region in terms of capacity generated from solar and wind energy sources (according to the Global Energy Monitor’s Global Solar Power Tracker and Global Wind Power Tracker): Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia.

2) have considerable operating and projected capacities.

To date, there is no unified data ranking renewable energy companies in Southeast Asia. As such, the survey relies on sources of publicly available information, including government data, lists from market intelligence firms, industry monitors, media articles and company disclosures.

See the table below for the full list of companies and policies identified.

Survey questions

The survey sent to companies was designed using key indicators from the Resource Centre’s global RE Benchmark. The RE Benchmark is anchored to international standards on business and human rights and relies on indicators developed by the World Benchmarking Alliance. These indicators include those which are based on 1) core policies and practices grounded in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs); and 2) salient human rights issues – specific policy, practice and performance proxies for key salient risks and issues for the wind and solar energy sectors.

A total of 13 indicators are used for the RE Benchmark. As the survey is a preliminary assessment with a regional focus, the questions are based on the following seven simplified indicators:

POLICY ANALYSIS

Out of the 12 companies invited by the Resource Centre to participate in the survey, only two responded substantively: ACEN Corporation and B. Grimm Power Public Company Ltd. One additional company (Vena Energy) sent a general response referring to its website and company reports. The survey responses and non-responses are available here.

Considering the low response rate, in addition to analysing the survey responses, the Resource Centre conducted desk-based research of the company websites and sustainability reports of non-respondent companies to analyse their policies against the seven indicators used for the survey.

How do companies respond to the risk of exposure to forced labour in XUAR evidenced in reports by UN bodies?

According to recent data, approximately 35% of the world’s polysilicon and 32% of global metallurgical grade polysilicon, the material from which polysilicon is made, is produced in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (XUAR). Investigations by UN bodies, academics and journalists have presented evidence on a number of human rights abuses including the use of forced labour in XUAR. In its July 2022 report to the UN General Assembly, the UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery

“regards it as reasonable to conclude that forced labour among Uyghur, Kazakh and other ethnic minorities has been occurring in the XUAR” and finds that some instances of forced labour in XUAR “may amount to enslavement as a crime against humanity.”

Supply chain transparency and traceability is critical to start addressing the issue. Investors are calling on companies to perform and disclose complete mappings of their value chains (upstream suppliers and downstream distributors, customers and users), in and outside of China. Industry groups are gearing up to establish stronger traceability standards, which must rely on specific disclosure requirements and extend through value chains. Discussions are underway to adopt further regulations on human rights due diligence and forced labour around the world, including at the EU level.

None of the surveyed companies have indicated that they have fully mapped their solar panel supply chains.

Only two companies (ACEN and Solarvest) expressly mention that grievances can be reported safely, without intimidation or retaliation. ACEN’s whistleblower policy ensures that any person making a report shall be protected from retaliation, reprisals, harassment or disciplinary action or victimisation; and assures that the identity of the whistleblower shall be protected. Solarvest’s policy considers any harassment or retaliation in any form or manner against a genuine whistle-blower as a serious violation, which if proven, may lead to serious disciplinary action.

Three companies (B. Grimm, Gulf Energy, and Vena Energy) mention some protection to whistleblowers by considering reports as either anonymous or confidential.

In terms of accessibility, only two companies (ACEN and TNB Engineering) describe how they ensure workers have adequate and fair access to their grievance mechanisms. ACEN mentions that each employee upon hiring and on an annual basis thereafter acknowledges in writing to have read their policy on grievance and to abide by the terms thereof. TNB Engineering has a grievance form accessible to all employees.

Only two companies (B. Grimm and ACEN) provide remedial actions for those affected by its business activities. B. Grimm has defined various types of remedies which include restitution, rehabilitation, financial or non-financial compensation, punitive sanctions, and the prevention of harm. ACEN mentioned developing and implementing a land restoration plan to address previous land acquisition issues.

Positive actions highlighted by RE companies 

Through the survey, the Resource Centre asked RE companies for any positive developments they would like to highlight regarding their company's human rights policies or practices. ACEN provided a more general answer by emphasising its “…sound governance and ethical conduct across all facets of our business” and the fact that it has “…established supplementary policies in 2023 to strengthen governance on crucial ESG themes”. B. Grimm provided a list of better company practice, one of which is the integration of health and safety management into supplier selection and evaluation process, so that suppliers who have better health and safety performance have a better opportunity to become one of its contractors.

Recommendations to RE companies in Southeast Asia

Shared prosperity

• Support access and affordability of renewable energy in the communities in which RE companies operate; and support government policies and actions to address local energy access challenges.

Duty of care

• Publicly commit to respect all internationally recognised human rights including fundamental rights at work in the eight ILO core conventions (such as the right of all workers to form and join a trade union of their choice and to bargain collectively without intimidation, harassment, retaliation and violence) across all operations and have board level oversight on the implementation of such commitments.
• Require suppliers, contractors, subcontractors, or other entities in its supply chain to comply with the company’s human rights and other rights-related policies and procedures.
• Establish clear responsibilities and accountability for the implementation of its supply chain policies that address forced labour and fully map solar panels supply chains, given the reported risks of forced labour linked to such supply chains.
• Conduct human rights and environmental due diligence to help in the prevention, mitigation, and remediation of human rights risks.

Fair negotiations

• Publicly commit to respect IPs’ rights, in line with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and centering their right to choose to give or withhold their FPIC; regularly engage with legitimate representatives of communities affected by business activities; and respect land rights of legitimate tenure rights-holders, considering the land-intensive nature of RE projects.
• Adopt a zero-tolerance policy to protect human rights and environmental defenders from threats, violence, surveillance, or physical or legal attacks, including the use of SLAPPs.