As the 2025 International Human Rights Day commemorations draw to a close, attention must shift from ceremony to reflection and, more importantly, to action. The focus is no longer on the scale or symbolism of the events, but on recognizing human rights as everyday necessities. Access to food, water, shelter, safety, and peace remains indispensable to human dignity. These are not abstract ideals, but urgent calls for action — unfinished work that must be carried forward into 2026.

This urgency is particularly evident in Indonesia. Recent natural disasters have caused widespread loss and displacement, while laying bare deep structural inequalities: unequal access to clean water, inadequate housing for low-income communities, and fragile protection systems that continue to leave the most vulnerable behind. These events underscore an uncomfortable truth: safeguarding human rights is not the sole responsibility of the government.

Corporate decisions — whether related to land use, environmental management, infrastructure development, or supply chain operations — can either strengthen community resilience or exacerbate the impact of disasters. When ecosystems are degraded, when industrial activities pollute water sources, or when companies fail to provide safe working and living conditions, disasters become more destructive. Corporate conduct directly shapes how communities experience risk, vulnerability, and recovery.

The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), adopted in 2011, explicitly acknowledge this shared responsibility. The UNGPs rest on three pillars: the state's duty to protect human rights, the corporate responsibility to respect them, and the right of victims to an effective remedy. As reaffirmed at the 2025 UN Forum on Business and Human Rights, the UNGPs remain the world’s most widely accepted standard for aligning business conduct with human dignity.

At the core of this framework lies Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD): a proactive process through which companies identify, prevent, mitigate, and address human rights risks and harms. This responsibility extends beyond a company’s own operations to its entire value chain, recognizing that business decisions can have far-reaching consequences for workers, communities, and the environment. Yet implementation remains uneven.

Discussions at this year’s UN Forum revealed a persistent gap. Large multinational corporations tend to apply HRDD more rigorously, driven by investor scrutiny and market expectations. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) — particularly in developing countries — often struggle with limited resources and awareness. This is deeply concerning, given that SMEs form the backbone of global supply chains and are frequently closest to workers and communities facing the greatest risks.

At the same time, vulnerable groups continue to bear the brunt of human rights abuses. Although corporate awareness has increased, stakeholder engagement often remains superficial — measured by the number of participants rather than by the quality of participation. Genuine engagement requires more than attendance. It demands accessible information, safe spaces for dialogue, and real opportunities for affected communities to influence decisions that shape their lives.

Meanwhile, the global regulatory landscape is undergoing a profound shift. While international standards still rely heavily on voluntary guidance, national legislatures are moving decisively toward binding obligations. Germany’s Supply Chain Act, the Modern Slavery Acts in the United Kingdom and Australia, California’s Transparency in Supply Chains Act, and the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive all point to a clear trend: enforceable rules backed by sanctions and incentives.

Voluntary standards continue to play an important role, particularly in providing operational guidance and sector-specific norms. However, they cannot substitute for the state’s duty to set clear expectations and ensure accountability. Effective governance requires a balanced approach: mandatory rules that establish a baseline of compliance, complemented by voluntary initiatives that encourage innovation, leadership, and continuous improvement.

Where Does Indonesia Stand on Business and Human Rights?
Indonesia has made notable progress in advancing the Business and Human Rights agenda. Presidential Regulation No. 60/2023 on the National Strategy on Business and Human Rights formally embeds the “protect–respect–remedy” framework into national policy for the first time. A key supporting instrument is PRISMA (Penilaian Risiko Bisnis dan HAM), a self-assessment tool developed by the Ministry of Human Rights to help companies identify potential human rights risks — an essential starting point for effective HRDD.

More recently, the Ministry of Human Rights has begun discussions on a national HRDD framework. Inter-ministerial consultations have taken place, and a proposal to initiate the formal drafting process has been submitted to the President. To date, however, approval has not been granted.

This delay raises a critical question: would HRDD help prevent corporate-linked environmental and social harms, such as those recently witnessed in West Sumatra and Aceh?

The answer is nuanced. HRDD is a tool, not a guarantee. Disasters and human rights violations often stem from complex political, economic, and social dynamics. Nonetheless, HRDD is indispensable. It obliges companies to systematically assess risks, consult affected communities, and take proactive measures to prevent and mitigate harm. It strengthens accountability and fosters a culture of anticipation rather than reaction — something Indonesia urgently needs as environmental shocks increasingly intersect with business activity and community vulnerability.

Crucially, HRDD must go beyond a narrow compliance mindset. Human rights cannot be reduced to indicators or checklists. Respect for human dignity requires both responsible processes and responsible outcomes. This is where corporate ethics become essential. Ethical business conduct is not merely about meeting regulatory requirements; it is about internalizing values such as integrity, accountability, fairness, and respect for people and the environment.

As Indonesia prepares its HRDD regulation, several key design questions remain. What model should be adopted — risk-based, sectoral, or hybrid? How should mandatory obligations, incentives, and sanctions be structured? How will the meaningful participation of affected communities, particularly vulnerable groups, be ensured? And how can the regulation avoid becoming an undue burden for companies while still delivering real accountability?

These technical challenges must not become an excuse for inaction. Globally, the assumption that respecting human rights is a financial burden has been repeatedly disproven. Leading companies demonstrate that robust HRDD enhances operational efficiency, strengthens resilience, and protects against legal and reputational risks.

By contrast, neglecting human rights leads to lost buyers, declining investment, litigation, and operational disruptions. Human rights are not a cost; they are a source of competitiveness. The question, therefore, is no longer whether corporations should respect human rights, but how they should do so, how the government will enforce it, and how affected communities can participate meaningfully in the process.

Why wait for mandatory HRDD when early adoption already offers clear benefits for both people and businesses? Environmental risks such as deforestation and land degradation can be identified far earlier, allowing companies to take preventive or mitigating action that protects communities and secures the long-term sustainability of their operations. Incorporating social risk assessments further ensures that corporate decisions contribute positively to society and enhance the enjoyment of human rights.

If companies consistently applied HRDD, respect for human rights would become the norm rather than the exception. Had this commitment guided corporate and government action earlier, some of the tragedies we witness today might well have been avoided.

---
Patricia Rinwigati is the Director of the Djokosoetono Research Center, a research institute under the University of Indonesia's Faculty of Law.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author.