abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

このページは 日本語 では利用できません。English で表示されています

ブリーフィング

2024年9月23日

Human rights in Southeast Asia's renewable energy transition: Analysing company policies

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.

At a glance

2 companies

out of 12

responded substantively to our survey (B. Grimm and ACEN)

4 companies

out of 12

have public human rights commitments (B. Grimm, ACEN, Gulf Energy and Vena Energy)

2 companies

out of 12

proactively identify and prioritise their human rights risks (B. Grimm and Gulf Energy)

Only 2

out of 12 companies

publicly commit to respect Indigenous Peoples' rights

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.

Labour rights aside, there are significant gaps in policy commitments to address other key salient human rights risks, particularly for vulnerable groups. Policies on Indigenous Peoples (IPs) are severely lacking: only two companies (B. Grimm and ACEN) expressly state a commitment to respect IPs' rights. This is particularly problematic given the significant impact of RE expansion on IPs, including a trend of criminalisation and attacks against IP Human Rights Defenders (IPHRDs) who speak out against RE projects that infringe upon their rights. Critically, none of the surveyed companies have a policy on protection of human rights defenders (HRDs) or environmental HRDs, and only three companies (B. Grimm, ACEN and Vena Energy) apparently have processes in place that allow for regular engagement with legitimate representatives of communities affected by their activities on human rights issues – an important way for business to identify harms, vulnerable community members such as HRDs, and opportunities 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.

Governance and policy commitments

Only four companies (B. Grimm, ACEN, Gulf Energy and Vena Energy) have published substantial commitments to respect internationally recognised human rights in their operations. In its response, B. Grimm mentioned it is committed to the following human rights instruments: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), the UNGPs, the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). ACEN and Gulf Energy have publicly committed to almost the same international human rights instruments but did not explicitly mention the ICCPR and the ICESCR. Vena Energy mentions that it operates in accordance with local and international standards, including the ILO Core Conventions and the UDHR, from an Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) perspective.

Three out of these four companies have board-level supervision of their human rights policy commitments; Gulf Energy, on the other hand, does not indicate board-level supervision.

Although their commitment to respecting human rights is not explicit in policy, two companies (BCG and GEC) mentioned policies that are largely framed from other standards such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). BCG’s board of directors provides leadership and guidance on its sustainability strategy. GEC does not specify if human rights practice is overseen at board level, but it has an operational risk control committee at the executive management level that assesses progress in implementing human rights. It also has a human rights team composed of senior representatives which reviews human rights risks.







Fridays 4 Future protest inside COP25, 2019

Indigenous Peoples’ and affected communities’ rights

Policies on IPs are severely lacking with only two companies (B. Grimm and ACEN) expressly stating a commitment to respect IPs' rights and clearly describing how that commitment is implemented. This is problematic considering how significantly the RE expansion has affected IPs, including a trend of criminalisation and attacks against IP Human Rights Defenders (IPHRDs) who speak against RE projects that infringe upon their rights.

In its response to the survey, B. Grimm mentioned that the company respects IPs' rights, citing its human rights policy, which states that the company’s human rights assessment and due diligence process covers all stakeholders, including IPs. ACEN states, “Consistent with our Environmental Social and Governance (ESG) Policy, we recognize and will protect indigenous people’s rights to be fairly compensated for the use of indigenous land and will adhere to the principle of ‘free, prior, and informed consent’ when carrying out projects on indigenous lands”.

Two companies (GEC and Gulf Energy) only mention IPs' rights in their compliance systems and performance indicators. One company (TNB Engineering) does not expressly provide a commitment to IPs' rights but gives a specific example of supporting communities near its operation sites, which comprise Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) efforts such as providing scholarships to children.

Only three companies (B. Grimm, ACEN and Vena Energy) show processes that allow for regular engagement with legitimate representatives of communities affected by their activities on human rights issues:

B. Grimm reported its engagement strategies in 2023, which include direct interaction with communities through public participation events to gather feedback, annual social surveys to measure community satisfaction, and bilateral and trilateral meetings with community members, company representatives and government agencies. ACEN and Vena Energy did not give particular examples of community engagement but mentioned principles and processes to facilitate these engagements.

BCG mentions some form of community engagement but only covers a limited scope of concerns, including protection of the natural environment and labour safety assurance. Two companies (GEC and TNB Engineering) mention some form of stakeholder engagement as part of their company strategy or compliance plan.

However, none of the surveyed companies have an explicit public commitment to respecting land rights of legitimate tenure rights-holders.

Local energy access

Four companies (ACEN, B. Grimm, Solarvest and TNB Engineering) mention they have a programme for access to renewable energy in the communities in which they operate. ACEN, B. Grimm and TNB Engineering provided specific examples. In its response to the survey, ACEN described a 1-KW solar system project for a remote school near one of its solar farms, IslaSol, at La Carlota, Negros Occidental.

B. Grimm mentioned a project involving installation of solar PV systems in schools and temples, with 10 target locations in communities near its power plants.

TNB Engineering supports government actions to address local energy access challenges as it partners with the Ministry of Rural and Regional Development in Malaysia to electrify rural areas, including villages and settlements of IPs. In 2023, TNB Engineering completed two significant projects enhancing connectivity to remote villages and expanding power infrastructure to underserved areas.

Solarvest did not mention any specific project on energy access but stated it has provisions on developing facilities, services, systems or equipment to provide communities with direct access to clean energy; and providing microgrid or off-grid systems for communities with limited access to power.

Labour rights (including protection against forced labour)

Policies on labour rights are more advanced. Six companies (B. Grimm, Gulf Energy, ACEN, Vena Energy, Plus Xnergy and TNB Engineering) have a commitment to respect labour rights in place. Only four companies (B. Grimm, ACEN, Vena Energy and Plus Xnergy), however, expressly commit to ILO core conventions.

Four companies (GEC, B. Grimm, ACEN and TNB Engineering) expressly mention respect for the right of workers to form and join a trade union and collectively bargain, but only B. Grimm requires respect for the right of all workers to form and join a trade union in contractual arrangements with its suppliers. B. Grimm also explained that, while there is no explicit mention of prohibiting retaliation against union members, its Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Commitment suggests a similar stance.

Eight companies (BCG, GEC, B. Grimm, Gulf Energy, ACEN, Vena Energy, Solarvest and TNB Engineering) disclosed key data regarding its worker health and safety performance.

Seven companies (GEC, B. Grimm, Gulf Energy, ACEN, Vena Energy, Plus Xnergy and TNB Engineering) have at least one provision that shows a commitment against forced labour. However, only B. Grimm establishes clear responsibilities and accountability for the implementation of its supply chain policies that address forced labour. B. Grimm mentions board committee oversight of its supply chain policies that address forced labour. The human rights performance of B. Grimm’s suppliers is reported to a purchasing committee and to the management committee, which includes one board member.


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.


Protection of human rights and environmental defenders

None of the surveyed companies have a policy on protection of HRDs or Environmental HRDs.

Five companies (GEC, Gulf Energy, B. Grimm, ACEN and Vena Energy) require suppliers, contractors, subcontractors, or other entities in their supply chain to comply with the companies’ human rights and other rights-related policies and procedures. One company (BCG) merely mentions it engages its suppliers and partners on sustainability requirements and compliance.

Of the four companies requiring supplier compliance, two companies (GEC and B. Grimm) hold suppliers accountable through supplier contracts and monitor compliance through audits. B. Grimm arranges knowledge-sharing sessions at least once a year to educate suppliers on various ESG topics, including human rights. On the other hand, Gulf Energy and Vena Energy rely on company policies such as supplier code of conduct and procurement policies to ensure suppliers comply with their human rights or sustainability policies.

Only ACEN and B. Grimm mentioned they enforce compliance beyond the first tier of their supply chain, with the latter only extending oversight to certain suppliers beyond the first tier. Only B. Grimm mentioned key challenges in ensuring subcontractor compliance.

BHRRC Renewable Energy & Human Rights Benchmark Briefing

Embedding respect and human rights due diligence

Two companies (B. Grimm and Gulf Energy) proactively identify their human rights risks and thereafter assess and prioritise such risks. B. Grimm conducts human rights due diligence every three years to identify measures to prevent and mitigate human rights risks and impacts. This includes scoping and identifying human rights risks. B. Grimm also assesses impacts and the significance of the human rights issues based on its severity and likelihood. Gulf Energy has a human rights due diligence process, guided by the UNGPs, which is used as a basis for the identification, assessment, and management of human rights risks and relevant remediation or corrective action. The company conducts human rights risk assessments at least annually. Although ACEN has a risk management process to identify, assess and prioritise risks, this process may be limited to health and safety issues as their response to our survey indicates.

BCG and Vena Energy have a materiality assessment process to identify sustainability focus areas, but their policies do not explicitly mention human rights issues. In the same vein, GEC identifies and assesses risks through its ESG director, but its policy does not mention human rights risks, rather it uses the term “ESG-related” risks.

Only two companies (B. Grimm and ACEN) claim to integrate their findings of human rights risks and impacts into relevant internal functions and processes to take appropriate actions to prevent, mitigate or remediate its salient human rights risks.

  • B. Grimm mentioned some actions by the company on health and safety of employees, i.e., develop health and safety manuals for working at power plants, conducting a “Safety Talk” session that provides examples of past accidents and preventive measures, among others.
  • ACEN described a specific action it took to address a salient human rights issue at one of its international assets in Vietnam – ACEN established a Land Restoration Plan to address previous land acquisition issues, creating livelihood programmes for households affected by its project.

Remedies and grievance mechanisms

Nine companies (GEC, B. Grimm, Gulf Energy, ACEN, Solar Phils., Vena Energy, Solarvest, Plus Xnergy and TNB Engineering) have mechanisms through which workers can raise complaints or concerns, though Plus Xnergy only has an informal system that is communicated to its workers. Only B. Grimm and ACEN mention grievance mechanisms in the form of whistleblower policies that can be accessed by external stakeholders or other third parties – these can potentially be workers in their supply chains. TNB Engineering’s policy implies that its grievance mechanism can be accessed by workers in the company's supply chain: “Our grievance and whistleblowing channels are available to respond to labour rights issues related to our employees or wider business activities.”

Although Solarvest’s policy includes promoting responsible labour practices that extend to the company's supply chain, it does not specify if workers in its supply chain have access to the company's grievance mechanism.

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.

Further reading

Just energy transition principles for human rights in business and investment

Impacts of the global climate crisis are multiplying quickly, and particularly for Indigenous and marginalised communities. But the transition cannot come at their expense. A just transition to clean energy must centre on three core principles: shared prosperity, human rights and social protection, and fair negotiations.

Renewable Energy and Human Rights Benchmark 2023

A rights-respecting renewable energy sector will be vital if we are to deliver a fast and fair energy transition. Our third global Renewable Energy & Human Rights Benchmark examines the human rights policies and practices of 28 of the largest wind and solar developers and manufacturers.

Natural Resources and Just Energy Transition

Energy, minerals, land and water sit at the heart of the transition to low-carbon economies, and at the start of every supply chain. However, the use of our planet's resources is all too often entwined with human rights abuse. At the other end of the value chain, renewable energy developers must also ensure they respect human rights to retain public support. Find out why we must ensure that the transition is both fast and fair.