From a corporate legal accountability perspective, this is a moment of contradictions. The EU is finalising a significant dilution of its Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, including the removal of the harmonised civil liability regime. Yet, as 2025 closes, legislative and judicial trends elsewhere in the world appear poised to drive progress in 2026.

Mandatory human rights due diligence and supply chain accountability

Momentum around mandatory human rights due diligence regulation is now undeniable. Several countries, including Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, Japan South Korea, Thailand and Switzerland, are considering domestic mandatory human rights due diligence regulations or policy frameworks. The binding treaty negotiations continue to progress, civil society sustains its advocacy for mandatory norms, and many businesses recognise such regulations can play a role in driving sustainable growth and competitiveness.

These movements arise alongside promising judicial trends, as reflected in the cases added to the Business and Human Rights Centre (BHRC)’s lawsuit profiles database:

In France, under the pioneering Duty of Vigilance Law, 2025 has brought the first conviction, in the La Poste case; a new lawsuit against Carrefour; and other major developments: the settlement of the Danone lawsuit, the disclosure order against TotalEnergies and the hearing of the Yves Rocher Group lawsuit. Belgian authorities have opened a criminal probe into allegations against Apple on conflict minerals sourcing in contravention of the EU Conflict Minerals Regulation. In the US, victims of forced labour in supply chains are bringing cases under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, including against Starbucks and Bumble Bee Foods.

Beyond specific regulations, judicial developments in parent company accountability continue in UK courts, with the landmark decision finding BHP liable for the Fundão Dam collapse and cases against Shell and Dyson progressing. Dutch courts heard the case against Norsk Hydro concerning pollution caused by its subsidiaries in Brazil, and displaced Cambodian families settled a class action against Thai sugar giant Mitr Phol. Zambian and Tanzanian rightsholder appeals before South African and Canadian courts, respectively, will determine whether their cases against Anglo American and Barrick Gold proceed.

These developments, along with complaints and ongoing investigations under the German supply chain law and US Government efforts against forced labour, indicate a trend toward judicial and regulatory supply chain accountability likely to continue in 2026.

Corporate accountability through climate and just transition litigation

Climate regulatory efforts are facing backlash, including at COP30. But the recent advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court consolidate the fight against climate change as a human rights issue and the legal duty of states. As these developments filter into domestic legal systems, climate litigation is set to become more central to climate action.

This comes through continuing direct challenges to governments’ climate policies and against climate impacts of specific projects, but also through legal action directed at companies. “Polluter pays” litigation, where victims seek compensation for climate-related harm, has expanded and will likely drive important developments next year. 2025 has brought important precedents, developments to ongoing cases and new lawsuits including one by the family of a heatwave victim against oil companies and one by Korean farmers against energy companies. Pakistani farmers affected by the 2022 floods have announced legal action against RWE and Heidelberg Materials, as have Philippine communities, affected by a typhoon against Shell.

Greenwashing cases remain the most common form of climate litigation against companies. Recent developments include court rulings against TotalEnergies, Apple, and Lufthansa and Adidas. An analysis of the BHRC’s Just transition litigation tracking tool shows lawsuits against renewable energy and transition mineral mining projects over their human rights impacts are also increasing, leading to project delays, “stop orders” and escalating costs. This raises a stark warning to companies and investors: failure to adopt a human rights-centred approach throughout project lifecycles risks significant financial and reputational damage.

These accountability efforts have made climate, land and environmental defenders a primary target of attacks, including through Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) brought by companies. One notable example is the USD345 million judgement against Greenpeace over protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, which the NGO is challenging.

Accountability, tech and conflict

As the tech sector grows increasingly dominant, so do its human rights impacts. Calls for the sector’s regulation are growing - despite some competing pressures to roll back current commitments– and the tech sector remains the subject to growing regulatory and judicial oversight, both trends likely to continue into 2026.

Privacy violations are a significant area of litigation. A US District Court has barred NSO Group from targeting WhatsApp users. Victims of post-coup repression in Myanmar are suing Telenor in Norway for sharing personal data with the military authorities, and a jury in California has found that Meta breached user privacy on the Flo period-tracking app.

Tech companies are also being challenged over the spread of harmful content. Kenya’s High Court ruled that a case against Meta over its alleged role in disseminating hate speech that fuelled the war in Tigray can be heard by Kenyan courts, while Brazil’s Supreme Court has ruled that social media companies must be held accountable for content published by users. Families and governments, including in the UK, France and the US, are challenging the impact of social platforms such as TikTok and Instagram and of ChatGPT on children’s well-being.

Civil society-led efforts have exposed companies in tech and beyond, to scrutiny over alleged complicity in international crimes. A 2025 lawsuit in France accuses Airbnb and Booking.com of complicity in Israel’s occupation over listings in settlements in Palestinian territories. In the US, BNP Paribas has been found liable for helping to sustain Sudan’s Omar al Bashir regime. In France, Lafarge and former executives are facing trial over alleged financing of Syrian armed groups, and a complaint has been filed against TotalEnergies for alleged complicity in war crimes in Mozambique.

The road to corporate accountability for human rights abuses is uneven, with a current retreat from some basic commitments led by the US Government and some companies, echoing worldwide. Yet many of the positive trends arising from the advances in human rights protection in the context of business of the last two decades are likely to continue in 2026. The business case for human rights centred operation has long been clear. Regulatory and judicial efforts around the world increasingly confirm this truth.