Business and human rights in the United States: Four key trends in 2025 – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

2025 Report on US Corporate Human Rights Performance and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Introduction and Methodology

This report provides an analysis of the human rights policies and commitments of 54 major US corporations across the technology, apparel, extractives, automotive, and agrifood sectors as of 2025. The assessment evaluates corporate performance and policy shifts over the past year, with a significant focus on their alignment with and contribution to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis prioritizes corporate impact on several key goals, including:

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, particularly targets concerning the protection of labor rights and the eradication of forced labor.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, focusing on corporate responsibility to respect human rights, the rule of law, and fundamental freedoms.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality and SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities, in the context of corporate diversity policies and product impacts.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production, relating to supply chain management and due diligence.

Key Findings on Corporate Commitments

Stability in Core Human Rights Policies

The primary finding indicates that core human rights policies and commitments publicly stated by the assessed companies have remained largely unchanged. This suggests a baseline of continued formal commitment to international human rights standards.

Areas of Regression and Misalignment with SDGs

Despite the stability of core policies, a more detailed analysis reveals concerning rollbacks in specific areas, indicating a growing gap between policy and practice and a direct challenge to achieving several SDGs.

• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI): Documented rollbacks on DEI commitments directly undermine progress on SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
• Climate Action: A retreat from climate commitments by some corporations poses a threat to SDG 13 (Climate Action).
• Technology Sector Governance: Shifts in policies related to responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI) and content moderation present significant risks to fundamental freedoms, impacting SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Analysis of Key Trends in the US Business and Human Rights Landscape

1. Trend 1: Corporate Lobbying on Human Rights Regulation

   Impact on SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

   A notable trend involves corporate lobbying efforts that actively oppose or seek to dilute human rights-related regulations, such as the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). These actions present a direct challenge to the advancement of SDG 16, which calls for the development of effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.

   • Corporate lobbying against mandatory human rights due diligence undermines the rule of law (Target 16.3) and weakens institutional frameworks designed to hold corporations accountable.
   • Efforts by some US companies and industry groups, such as the American Chamber of Commerce to the EU, to weaken the CSDDD contrast sharply with support from other businesses that recognize strong regulation as foundational to sustainable economic growth.
   • Conversely, positive examples exist where industry associations, including the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA), have advocated for the preservation of government programs that support labor rights, demonstrating a commitment to SDG 8 and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

   Recommendations for SDG Alignment

   To align with the SDGs, companies must ensure that their lobbying activities are consistent with their public human rights commitments. Active support for mandatory due diligence legislation is a critical step toward achieving SDG 8, SDG 12, and SDG 16.

2. Trend 2: Corporate Conduct in Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas

   Challenges to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

   The response of US corporations to conflicts and genocide tests the credibility of their human rights commitments and their contribution to SDG 16, which aims to significantly reduce all forms of violence.

   • A UN report identified numerous US-headquartered companies as having profited from activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, raising questions of complicity in actions identified by UN experts as genocide.
   • Corporate activities allegedly enabling Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, including substantial tax payments to the Kremlin and the provision of components for military hardware, directly contradict the goal of promoting peaceful and inclusive societies (Target 16.1).
   • Operations in other high-risk contexts, such as Myanmar and the Democratic Republic of Congo, continue to link business activities to systemic violence and human rights abuses, further undermining SDG 16.

   Recommendations for SDG Alignment

   In adherence to international standards and to support SDG 16, companies must implement heightened human rights due diligence in conflict-affected areas. Where severe human rights risks cannot be mitigated, a responsible exit must be considered to avoid contributing to violence and instability.

3. Trend 3: Supply Chain Restructuring and Resulting Human Rights Risks

   Implications for SDG 8 (Decent Work), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), and SDG 1 (No Poverty)

   In response to US tariffs, companies are rapidly shifting supply chains, creating new and severe human rights risks that threaten progress on multiple SDGs.

   • The apparel and footwear sectors have seen buyers shift orders to lower-cost countries, placing downward pressure on wages and working conditions in manufacturing hubs like Bangladesh and India.
   • Reported impacts include order cancellations, unpaid work, suppression of unions, and widespread job losses. These outcomes directly contravene SDG 8 by undermining decent work and labor rights (Target 8.8) and threaten to increase poverty (SDG 1).
   • Women workers, who form the majority of the garment workforce, are disproportionately affected, representing a significant setback for SDG 5 (Gender Equality).

   Recommendations for SDG Alignment

   Companies altering their supply chains must conduct enhanced human rights due diligence. This includes ensuring responsible exit from supplier relationships and verifying that new suppliers uphold international labor standards, which is imperative for advancing SDG 8 and SDG 12.

4. Trend 4: The Unregulated Power of the US Technology Sector

   Pervasive Risks to Multiple SDGs

   The concentrated and largely unregulated power of US tech companies poses a systemic threat to human rights and the broader SDG agenda.

   • SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The accelerating convergence of the tech and defense industries, including the development of AI-powered weapons systems, poses a grave threat to peace and security. The removal of policies banning military use of AI by major tech firms heightens risks of civilian harm in conflicts.
   • SDG 5 (Gender Equality) & SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): Systemic gender and racial bias embedded in AI and facial recognition tools leads to discriminatory outcomes and wrongful arrests. The proliferation of misogynistic hate speech on platforms, coupled with rollbacks in content moderation and DEI programs, exacerbates inequality.
   • SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure): The current trajectory of the tech sector reflects a failure to foster responsible innovation that is inclusive and sustainable, instead creating and amplifying human rights risks.

   Recommendations for SDG Alignment

   To ensure that technological advancement contributes positively to the SDGs, the sector must be regulated. Mandatory human rights due diligence is an essential starting point to hold companies accountable for their impacts. Furthermore, public subsidies and government contracts should be contingent on companies meeting robust standards for human rights protection, aligning innovation with sustainable development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

SDG 5: Gender Equality

• The article mentions the cancellation of USAID programs that supported companies in advancing “women’s equality in their agricultural commodity sourcing.” This directly connects to the goal of achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls by highlighting a setback in programs designed to improve women’s economic roles in supply chains.
• It also points to a study by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre and World Benchmarking Alliance which found that leading tech companies are failing to address systemic harms related to gender. Examples include negative health impacts on female workers and platforms facilitating “misogynistic hate speech,” which are clear barriers to gender equality.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

• This SDG is central to the article’s discussion on labor rights. It explicitly mentions government and company efforts to “eliminate child and forced labor,” referencing the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA).
• The article highlights the rollback of labor protections in the US, including “care work minimum wage protections and union organizing rights for migrant farmworkers,” which undermines the goal of decent work for all.
• The impact of US tariffs on global supply chains is discussed, leading to human rights risks such as “unpaid work, poor working conditions, and suppression of unions and freedom of association,” directly contradicting the principles of decent work. The case of 5,000 textile workers in Lesotho being put on unpaid leave is a specific example.

SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

• The article focuses heavily on corporate accountability and sustainable practices. It discusses the need for companies to implement “human rights due diligence” and adopt human rights policies.
• The European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) are highlighted as key legislative efforts to enforce responsible production patterns. The article details how some companies are lobbying against these regulations while others support them, showing the ongoing struggle to implement this goal.
• The analysis of companies shifting supply chains due to tariffs underscores the need for responsible exit and entry strategies to ensure that production changes do not lead to human rights abuses.

SDG 13: Climate Action

• The article notes “well-documented rollbacks on commitments related to… climate” by some US companies. This shows a reversal of progress towards climate action.
• It mentions the “Executive Order on Unleashing American Energy,” which promotes extractive industries and deregulation, running counter to the goal of combating climate change.
• The criminalization of “environmental defenders” who advocate to “address the climate crisis” is also discussed, indicating a threat to civil society actions aimed at achieving climate goals.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• This goal is addressed through multiple themes. The article discusses the weakening of institutions, such as the elimination of the business and human rights team at the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) and the cancellation of USAID funding for the “Extractives Industries Transparency Initiative to address corruption.”
• It highlights the threat to fundamental freedoms by referencing legislation “enacted in 23 states limiting protests at pipelines or critical infrastructure sites,” which criminalizes environmental defenders and restricts civic space.
• The role of companies in conflict zones is a major focus, with the article naming US companies allegedly profiting from conflicts in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and others whose products are found in Russian weapons used in Ukraine. This relates directly to reducing violence and promoting peaceful societies.
• Corporate lobbying against human rights regulations like the CSDDD is presented as an effort to weaken accountability and justice mechanisms.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

• The article discusses the interplay between US companies and international regulations, particularly the EU’s CSDDD and AI Act. The support for these regulations by some companies and industry associations (like Mars and the Global Network Initiative) exemplifies multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development.
• It also highlights partnerships between industry associations like the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) and government bodies like the Department of Labor’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) to promote labor rights, showing the importance of such collaborations.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

SDG 5: Gender Equality

1. Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere. This is relevant to the finding that tech companies are failing to address systemic harms related to gender, such as bias in facial recognition tools and the proliferation of misogynistic hate speech on their platforms.
2. Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life. The cancellation of a USAID program supporting “women’s equality in their agricultural commodity sourcing” is a direct setback to this target, as it aimed to improve women’s economic participation.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

1. Target 8.7: Take immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labour, end modern slavery and human trafficking and secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour. The article directly addresses this target by discussing the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) and government efforts to “eliminate child and forced labor.”
2. Target 8.8: Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment. This target is central to the discussion of cutting “60+ labor rights regulations, including… union organizing rights for migrant farmworkers” and the risks of “unpaid work, poor working conditions, and suppression of unions” in supply chains affected by tariffs.

SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

1. Target 12.6: Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle. The entire premise of the article, which reviews the human rights policies of 54 US companies and discusses regulations like the CSDDD and CSRD, is aligned with this target. The “US corporate human rights index” is a tool for encouraging such practices.

SDG 13: Climate Action

1. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning. The article points to a regression on this target by mentioning corporate “rollbacks on commitments related to… climate” and the US “Executive Order on Unleashing American Energy,” which prioritizes fossil fuel development over climate action.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. This is relevant to the discussion of companies’ roles in conflict zones, such as their alleged complicity in Gaza and the use of their components in Russian weapons in Ukraine, which contribute to violence and civilian harm.
2. Target 16.5: Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms. The cancellation of USAID funding for the “Extractives Industries Transparency Initiative to address corruption” is a direct blow to this target. Corporate lobbying to weaken regulations like the CSDDD can also be seen as an effort to avoid accountability, which is related to this target.
3. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article’s critique of the dismantling of the business and human rights team at the State Department and the narrowing of human rights country reports points to a weakening of institutional accountability and transparency.
4. Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements. This is directly addressed by the mention of new bills and existing laws in 23 states that “further criminalizing environmental defenders” and limit the right to protest, thereby threatening fundamental freedoms.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

1. Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships. The article provides examples of such partnerships, including the support from companies and investors for the EU’s CSDDD and the collaboration between the AAFA, FLA, and the Department of Labor to protect labor rights.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

• Implied Indicator for Target 8.7: The number of enforcement actions and value of goods barred under legislation like the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA). The article mentions the US barring imports of bicycles from Giant Manufacturing as a specific instance. The existence and use of the “Forced Labor Allegation Portal” is another measurable tool.
• Implied Indicator for Target 8.8: The number of labor rights regulations active versus those that have been cut. The article specifies that the Department of Labor would be “cutting 60+ labor rights regulations.” Tracking this number serves as a direct indicator of the protection of labor rights.

SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

• Mentioned Indicator for Target 12.6: The “US corporate human rights index” itself serves as an indicator. It assesses the “human rights policies and commitments of 54 US companies,” providing a measurable snapshot of corporate adoption of sustainable practices. The number of companies supporting or lobbying against regulations like the CSDDD is another quantifiable indicator of corporate commitment.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Mentioned Indicator for Target 16.5: The amount of money spent on corporate lobbying against regulations. The article provides a specific figure: “Meta spending a record USD 13.8 million” in the first half of 2025 to lobby against state AI regulation. The amount of taxes paid to governments in conflict zones, such as the “USD 1.2 billion in profit taxes to the Kremlin in 2024” by American firms, is another financial indicator.
• Mentioned Indicator for Target 16.10: The number of laws or bills that restrict fundamental freedoms. The article explicitly states that legislation limiting protests has been “enacted in 23 states,” providing a clear, quantifiable indicator of shrinking civic space.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Source: business-humanrights.org