Powerful companies may be dragged into court for human rights harms they claim to know nothing about, according to new study from the University of Surrey.
Researchers argue that global businesses can no longer hide behind complex corporate structures and that major companies risk legal responsibility for labour abuse and even climate damage linked to their global operations.
The study, published in Business and Human Rights Journal , shows that courts in the UK and abroad are increasingly willing to treat corporate human rights responsibility as a legal duty rather than a voluntary promise. The result is a growing wave of litigation targeting powerful multinationals in relation to a range of harms, including forced labour in supply chains, environmental pollution, unsafe working conditions, and contributions to climate change.
The research examined a series of high-profile cases that illustrate the evolving landscape of strategic business and human rights litigation. These include claims brought in the UK against British American Tobacco by thousands of Malawian tobacco farmers alleging forced labour, child labour, and hazardous working conditions within its supply chain; litigation against Dyson by migrant workers who claim they were trafficked and subjected to forced labour in overseas factories producing Dyson products; and landmark climate litigation in the Netherlands against Shell, in which courts have been asked to assess whether major energy companies owe duties of care to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in line with human rights and climate obligations.
Dr Ekaterina Aristova, author of the study and Senior Lecturer in Private Law at the University of Surrey, said:
“The English courts are beginning to recognise that corporate responsibility cannot stop at the factory gate. When powerful companies benefit from global operations, they must also take responsibility for the human rights harm that follows. Litigation is becoming a real tool for individuals and communities who have historically had no voice.”
The research highlights how legal strategies that once seemed impossible, including efforts to establish parent-company duties of care for overseas supply-chain abuses and to frame climate change as a justiciable harm, are now influencing how judges think about corporate responsibility.
As companies move manufacturing and sourcing into countries with weaker labour standards, claims in English courts are testing whether corporate owners and purchasers can be held responsible for forced labour, child labour and unsafe conditions happening further down their supply chains. This issue has gained renewed attention, particularly following the publication of the UK House of Lords Select Committee’s report on 16 October 2024, which reviewed the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015. Instances of supply chain litigation in English courts further support the urgent need for a stronger legislative response.
The study also finds that climate change is now widely treated as a business and human rights issue. Corporate defendants are already facing court cases requiring them to cut emissions - most notably in the Dutch case Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell, in which a Hague District Court in 2021 ordered Shell to reduce its global CO₂ emissions by 45 % by 2030 compared with 2019 levels, marking the first time a court imposed such a reduction obligation on a corporation - and even as that order has been modified on appeal and is now before the Dutch Supreme Court, legal challenges of this kind are expected to continue and inspire similar claims against major emitters.
Dr Aristova continued:
“These legal actions are slowly turning soft human rights expectations into enforceable duties. The result could reshape how corporations operate globally, who they can be sued by, and what responsibilities they owe to vulnerable workers and communities.”
[ENDS]
Note to editors
Multinational Business Review
Observational study
People
Reducing the fallout: the role of managerial attention in tackling media reporting on corporate social irresponsibility in offshore outsourcing