Gabriel Araujo is an independent consultant specializing in Business and Human Rights and Responsible Business Conduct. He is currently a PhD candidate at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, where his research focuses on the development of mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD).
A year ago, we gathered at Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian in Lisbon for a full day of reflection and discussion. Today, as conversations around corporate sustainability, human rights, and environmental responsibility continue to unfold, we look back at the Fourth Annual Conference of the NOVA Centre on Business, Human Rights and the Environment (NOVA BHRE).
Titled “Unpacking Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence,” the event brought together over 200 registered online participants and a very engaged audience in the room. Over the course of the day, four panels brought together more than 20 speakers from five continents.
We extend our deepest gratitude to them, and to all our speakers, moderators, and collaborators who made the day a success.
A Timely Conversation
From the opening remarks, it was clear that the theme of the conference could not have been more timely. As Margarida Lima Rego, Dean of NOVA School of Law, reminded us, the convergence of climate change, biodiversity loss, and ongoing human rights violations continues to reshape how we understand the role of business in society.
The message was clear and urgent: it is no longer enough to focus solely on economic growth. Businesses must act as stewards of people and the planet. This call for responsibility echoed throughout the morning, reflected in interventions from government representatives, international experts, and practitioners alike.
Aua Baldé, Former Chair-Rapporteur of the UN Working Group on Enforced Disappearances, captured the mindset driving this shift: “Respecting rights must become a core business function, not just a compliance checkbox.”
Moving into Meaningful Practice
A recurring theme was the need to go beyond compliance. Due diligence is no longer about drafting policies; it is about transforming how companies operate and what they actually do. That means understanding how to prioritise risks, engage thoughtfully with workers and communities, and evaluating the real impact of business decisions.
Nicole Solomons, from the UN Global Compact, stressed that meaning starts with clear structures and internal alignment. This includes company-wide awareness, concrete action plans, and governance tools such as ESG-linked remuneration policies and purpose statements that are anchored in everyday decision-making. For due diligence to be effective, everyone in the organisation must understand what it means and how it connects to their role. That is, due diligence becomes meaningful when it is translated into something everyone in the organisation understands and owns.
When it comes to identifying and addressing risks, Francisco Granja de Almeida emphasised the importance of grounded, local engagement. Documentation, active listening, and direct contact with those most affected were identified as foundational, not just procedural steps but essential components of a credible due diligence system. These are not boxes to tick, they are building blocks of credibility.
Discussions also turned to what qualifies as “appropriate measures” in practice. Speakers pushed back against one-size-fits-all solutions, calling instead for context-specific responses that take into account a company’s risk profile, operating environment, and level of leverage. Particular attention was paid to groups often left out of due diligence frameworks, such as domestic workers or workers in deeply embedded supply chains, and to those operating in conflict-affected and high-risk areas where basic protections are limited.
The final panel turned the spotlight onto transparency and accountability. Reporting was reframed not as a communications exercise, but as a form of measurable governance, beyond the glossy sustainability reports we have all seen outhere. Lucila de Almeida argued that both the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) could help shift reporting away from promotional narratives and toward structured, standards-based accountability.
Closely connected to this discussion was the issue of worker voice. As Sophie Grenet of IndustriAll Europe put it, while transparency structures can elevate visibility, they are not enough on their own. No due diligence process can claim credibility without genuine participation. Involving workers and unions is not a “nice to have,” but a structural requirement if businesses are serious about accountability.
Where Are We Now?
At the time of the conference, the CSDDD had just been adopted. Since then, the so-called Omnibus Package reopened negotiations, and political discussions have intensified. Some governments and stakeholders have voiced concerns around what they describe as a regulatory burden, particularly the cost of implementing human rights and environmental due diligence.
But these concerns are not new, and they are not necessarily grounded in evidence. As noted during the conference, the “Study on Due Diligence Requirements Through the Supply Chains” commissioned by the European Commission and co-authored by Claire Bright, found that the cost of mandatory due diligence relative to company revenues is low, less than 0.14 percent for SMEs and just 0.009 percent for large companies. These figures were echoed by several speakers to counter the narrative that regulation comes at the expense of competitiveness.
More recently, a 2025 UNDP report titled Human Rights vs. Competitiveness – A False Dilemma? Data on the Financial Implications of Corporate Human Rights Performance went furthert, presenting data showing that companies with stronger human rights practices are not only more resilient, but also more profitable. The report found that good human rights performance correlates positively with return on investment and investor confidence, positioning human rights not as a cost, but as a source of long-term value.
The wider direction, however, remains unchanged. Whether or not the CSDDD is adopted in its original form, the underlying message is clear: respecting human rights and environmental standards is no longer a fringe concern. It is an operational and reputational imperative, shaping how companies are regulated, evaluated, and remembered.
And many companies are not waiting. The legal framework may still be debated, but the market signals are already there. Supply chains are being restructured. Engagement with stakeholders is evolving. Business models are being questioned. The shift is underway, and it is not going away.
A Collective Effort for the Long Term
Perhaps the most powerful message of the day was one of shared responsibility. Due diligence is not just a legal obligation, it is a collective effort involving governments, companies, investors, workers, and civil society.
There are no silver bullets, that much is clear, and the challenges ahead are complex. But the conversations we had at NOVA BHRE’s fourth conference showed that the tools, ideas, and partnerships already exist. What we need now is the resolve to use them.
As we move into another year of regulatory developments and corporate commitments, one thing remains certain: this work cannot be done in isolation. The path forward will require collaboration, and we will continue to play our part in advancing this dialogue, turning reflection into action and research into real-world impact.
Suggested citation: G. Araujo, ‘Looking Back at NOVA BHRE’s Fourth Annual Conference’, NOVA BHRE Blog, 8 December 2025