Digital Transformation for all: An Information Society that respects and protects human rights

Summary

This roundtable discussion, organized by the European Commission and African Union, focused on the importance of human rights due diligence in technology development and implementation, particularly in the context of the WSIS Plus 20 review process. The panel brought together representatives from the European Commission, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the African Union, civil society, and the private sector to examine how human rights frameworks can guide technological innovation.

The discussion emphasized that human rights should serve as a “compass” for innovation rather than an obstacle, helping to surface hidden harms and ensure technology benefits all people. Panelists highlighted that human rights due diligence is essential for building trust in the digital economy, as consumers are more likely to share data with companies that respect their rights. From a business perspective, Nokia’s representative explained that human rights due diligence must be integrated throughout the technology lifecycle, from research and development to sales processes, requiring strong management support and continuous training.

The conversation addressed the balance between voluntary and mandatory measures, with participants noting that while some companies proactively implement human rights safeguards, regulatory frameworks like the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive help create level playing fields. Special attention was given to protecting vulnerable populations, particularly children, given Africa’s young demographic. The African Union representative emphasized the need for algorithmic transparency and digital dignity indices to assess the net effects of technological deployment.

The WSIS Plus 20 co-facilitators concluded by reaffirming their commitment to embedding human rights principles throughout the review process, while acknowledging that 2.6 billion people remain unconnected twenty years after the original WSIS vision of a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) as a Framework for Technology**: The discussion emphasized HRDD as a systematic approach to identify, prevent, and mitigate human rights risks in technology development and deployment, with speakers describing it as a “compass” rather than an obstacle to innovation.

– **Business Case for Human Rights in Technology**: Panelists argued that respecting human rights is not only ethically correct but also economically beneficial, with trust being fundamental to the data economy – companies that respect user rights build greater trust and achieve more sustainable business models.

– **Implementation Strategies and Best Practices**: The conversation covered practical approaches including embedding human rights considerations early in product development, requiring management support for human rights policies, conducting continuous training, and using external audits through multi-stakeholder initiatives.

– **Integration of Human Rights into WSIS Plus 20 Review**: Participants discussed how to strengthen human rights language in the World Summit on the Information Society review process, emphasizing that human rights should be “by default” rather than an add-on, and calling for explicit inclusion of UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

– **Addressing Digital Divides and Vulnerable Populations**: The discussion highlighted the need to focus on those left behind, particularly the 2.6 billion people still unconnected globally, with special attention to children, women, and other vulnerable groups in the context of AI and emerging technologies.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how human rights due diligence can be integrated into technology development and digital governance frameworks, specifically within the context of the WSIS Plus 20 review process. The goal was to demonstrate that human rights considerations enhance rather than hinder technological innovation and business success, while providing practical guidance for implementation.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was consistently collaborative, constructive, and optimistic throughout the conversation. Speakers demonstrated strong alignment on core principles, with the discussion maintaining a professional yet passionate advocacy for human rights integration. The tone remained solution-oriented rather than confrontational, with panelists building on each other’s points and the co-facilitators expressing genuine openness to incorporating human rights perspectives into the WSIS review process. There was a sense of urgency balanced with pragmatic realism about implementation challenges.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Thibaut Kleiner** – European Commission representative, moderator/organizer of the roundtable discussion

– **Anna Oosterlinck** – Article 19 representative

– **Suela Janina** – Co-facilitator of WSIS Plus 20 review process

– **Gbenga Sesan** – Executive Director of Paradigm Initiative, IGF Leadership Panel member

– **Ekitela Lokaale** – Co-facilitator of WSIS Plus 20 review process, diplomat and human rights lawyer

– **Fiona Cura-Pietre** – Head of Human Rights at Nokia

– **Peggy Hicks** – Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) representative, panel moderator

– **Lavina Ramkissoon** – Ambassador from the African Union (Her Excellency)

– **Participant** – Josiane with Child Rights and Business in UNICEF

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond those in the provided speakers names list.

# Human Rights Due Diligence in Technology Development – WSIS Plus 20 Roundtable Discussion

## Executive Summary

This roundtable discussion, jointly organised by the European Commission and African Union, examined the role of human rights due diligence (HRDD) in technology development within the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process. The discussion brought together representatives from government, UN agencies, civil society, private sector, and international organisations to explore how human rights frameworks can guide technological innovation while addressing the reality that 2.6 billion people remain unconnected twenty years after the original WSIS vision.

## Key Participants

**Thibaut Kleiner** from the European Commission opened the discussion, framing it within current global challenges including surveillance, misinformation, and digital exclusion. **Peggy Hicks** from the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) served as moderator, emphasising how human rights can serve as a tool to deliver benefits from digital technology while avoiding risks.

**Suela Janina** and **Ekitela Lokaale** served as co-facilitators of the WSIS Plus 20 review process. Lokaale emphasised the need to ask “who is left behind and why?” when considering the 2.6 billion people still unconnected globally, while both demonstrated openness to incorporating human rights perspectives into the review process.

**Anna Oosterlinck** from Article 19 advocated for strengthening human rights language in the WSIS framework. **Gbenga Sesan** from Paradigm Initiative provided insights on the business case for human rights, while **Fiona Cura-Pietre**, Head of Human Rights at Nokia, offered practical implementation perspectives. **Ambassador Lavina Ramkissoon** from the African Union emphasised algorithmic transparency and child rights protection. A participant from UNICEF raised questions about balancing mandatory and voluntary measures.

## Human Rights as a Framework for Innovation

Ambassador Ramkissoon referenced former UN High Commissioner Navi Pillay’s observation that “human rights is not an obstacle to innovation, but it is a compass,” explaining how this framework determines “the sort of digital divide that we end up with or not.” This reframing positioned human rights as guidance for sustainable development rather than a constraint on technological progress.

Peggy Hicks reinforced this perspective, describing human rights as “a tool to deliver benefits from digital technology and AI while avoiding risks.” The framework’s value lies in its ability to surface hidden harms and make invisible impacts visible, providing a structured methodology for thinking through technology impacts on people in advance.

Suela Janina highlighted technology’s dual nature, noting that it “can both enable human rights through access to information and infringe rights without proper safeguards,” underscoring the need for human rights protection throughout the entire technology lifecycle.

## The Business Case for Human Rights

Gbenga Sesan provided compelling analysis of why human rights protection makes business sense: “the new economy, the data economy, the gig economy, is built on the concept of trust. If I don’t trust you, I won’t give you my data. If I don’t give you my data, you can’t process it.” He emphasised that “human dignity is a core need. Everyone wants to be respected.”

This insight links human rights directly to the core asset of digital businesses – user data and trust. Sesan noted the need to find “that bite point, that balance between people and profits,” while identifying “a huge gap between doing just enough to meet legal requirements and doing enough to respect rights.”

Fiona Cura-Pietre reinforced this from a corporate perspective, explaining that “it’s more profitable to implement HRDD than deal with reputational damage from violations.” She noted that Nokia, being “active in over 120 countries,” wants to “deliver connectivity in a responsible way.”

## Practical Implementation Strategies

Cura-Pietre shared Nokia’s approach: “we do [human rights due diligence] as part of our sales approval process… before the sale is done, because that’s where our leverage is. It allows us to walk away and say, no, we don’t want to do this.”

Key implementation elements include:

– **Management Support**: CEO-approved policies are essential for making human rights-based decisions

– **Continuous Training**: Awareness building across all business units

– **Lifecycle Integration**: Building HRDD into R&D processes for both near-term and future technology development

– **External Assessment**: Multi-stakeholder engagement provides valuable external input and accountability

Sesan added that “documented processes enable strategic litigation and provide proof when rights violations occur,” emphasising the importance of clear audit trails.

## Integration into WSIS Plus 20 Review

Anna Oosterlinck observed that “human rights language in current WSIS framework is fairly light and needs strengthening with explicit reference to UN Guiding Principles.” Sesan emphasised that “human rights must be embedded by default, not as a tokenistic add-on to the WSIS process.”

The co-facilitators demonstrated commitment to incorporating these perspectives. Lokaale explained their “open, multi-stakeholder approach to the WSIS Plus 20 consultation process” and committed to strengthening human rights language in the zero draft. She emphasised that a “human rights-based approach should guide both process and outcomes with accountability and non-discrimination.”

Janina noted that “the Global Digital Compact provided positive language developments and compromise formulations” that could inform the WSIS review. Both co-facilitators extended deadlines for written inputs to enable broader participation.

The original WSIS vision of a “people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented information society” inherently embodies human rights principles, providing a foundation for strengthening the framework.

## Addressing Digital Divides and Vulnerable Populations

The discussion repeatedly addressed the challenge that 2.6 billion people remain unconnected. Vulnerable groups requiring special attention include:

– **Children and Young People**: Ramkissoon highlighted that “child rights protection is crucial given Africa’s young population”

– **Women**: Janina specifically mentioned women among vulnerable categories needing special focus

– **Persons with Disabilities**: Recognised as facing particular barriers in digital access

The conversation emphasised ensuring that human rights safeguards enhance rather than hinder digital inclusion for marginalised populations.

## Balancing Mandatory and Voluntary Measures

Participants expressed different perspectives on regulatory approaches. Cura-Pietre advocated that “companies should implement HRDD regardless of legal requirements because it’s the right approach,” while acknowledging moves toward mandatory requirements through legislation like the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.

The UNICEF participant raised concerns about finding the right balance between mandatory and voluntary measures, particularly considering impacts on startups and small tech companies. The discussion suggested that complementary mandatory and voluntary measures may be most effective.

## Future Challenges and Considerations

Ramkissoon raised forward-looking questions about “how to navigate human-AI coexistence and prepare for a society with multiple humanoids functioning alongside humans,” advocating for “algorithmic transparency and checkpoints” and proposing “digital dignity indices” to assess technological impacts.

Current challenges include surveillance, misinformation, and deprivation of choice and voice, demonstrating that human rights concerns require immediate attention alongside preparation for future technologies.

Ramkissoon identified cultural change as particularly challenging, noting that “cultural mindset shifts are needed, which may be the hardest problem to solve in today’s age.” She emphasised that “human rights requires storytelling, open dialogue, and community engagement as fundamental building blocks.”

## Conclusions

The discussion demonstrated broad agreement among stakeholders on the importance of human rights due diligence in technology development. The business case for human rights protection emerged as particularly compelling, with speakers showing that trust built through rights protection is both morally correct and economically advantageous.

The commitment of WSIS Plus 20 co-facilitators to strengthening human rights language, combined with practical insights from business and civil society representatives, indicates momentum for advancing human rights integration in digital governance frameworks.

Key challenges remain in connecting 2.6 billion unconnected people while ensuring human rights safeguards enhance rather than hinder digital inclusion. The ongoing work requires balancing various stakeholder concerns while maintaining focus on the original WSIS vision of people-centred digital development.

Thibaut Kleiner: Mr. Thibaut Kleiner, Ms. Lavina Ramkissoon Mr. Thibaut Kleiner, Ms. Lavina Ramkissoon Mr. Thibaut Kleiner, Ms. Lavina Ramkissoon Mr. Thibaut Kleiner, Ms. Lavina Ramkissoon Okay, good afternoon. So I’m Thibaut Kleiner from the European Commission, and I’m happy to welcome you today to this discussion, this roundtable. I think that we have really esteemed participants today, so I think excellencies are very happy to be able to also engage with this discussion overall. I think that human rights sometimes seems to be taken for granted in some of the conversations, but I think we have the opportunity today to reaffirm the importance of human rights for our work. And I wanted to start by, in fact, congratulating really the co-facilitators of the YSYS plus 20, because I think that the way you have approached the process, being very open to suggestions, also organizing now a consultation that will be very much based on multi-stakeholder principles, is something that I think has to be underlined, and I think that it is very promising for the following steps. I think we are all looking forward to sharing with you some initial reactions to the first elements, but also towards the zero draft, because we have little time left, actually, until December and the conclusion of these processes. But what is important is indeed that we also benefit from the very important discussions that took place already in the past two years around the Global Digital Compact. I think that there was a lot of positive development, and by and large I think that the language that was found in terms of compromise formulations were very helpful in bridging also various positions. And I think it was very nice to see also last September how countries from the Global South, if I may say, were also actually raising the issue that human rights are not to be compromised with, and I think this was really something that was very much noticed. and I think that it’s also something that from the side of the European Union we really want to again underline that it’s not something that is an issue that is just coming from one part of the spectrum, it’s an issue that we all share and it’s an issue also that we need to repeat because what is clear when you look around even in the whole talking about AI for instance is that the technology is extremely promising in terms of benefits but also that the risks and the opportunities to misuse technology have just increased. I think where we are today is a world where surveillance is a reality, where we are today is a world where you can be deprived from your choice, from your voice and where you can be subject to a lot of misinformation and disinformation. So I think that we cannot basically overlook these issues and these risks and that’s why it’s very important when we contemplate the future of the internet, the YSYS, we also remember its very origin and the formulations we had 20 years ago where again I think that human-centric, human rights-based approach were really cornerstone. So I don’t want to say much more but to basically open the floor I think that we are fortunate to have with us also Peggy Higgs from the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights who doesn’t need any introduction because I think that you’ve been also very influential in these debates including on AI precisely and I would like also to commend the participation of precisely the co-facilitators today. Great, thank you so much.

Peggy Hicks: It’s such a pleasure to be with you, to be working with the EU and the AU in partnership on co-organizing this event and to start off from that standpoint of really recognizing as you have the important role that with us. co-facilitators are having in the process. We’re grateful to have you with us, Ambassadors, and we hope it’ll be a fruitful discussion for you as well, especially, of course, as we’ve discussed, emphasizing the multi-stakeholder nature of the process and the inclusive approach that you’ve been taking. And this is an example of that, I think, being part of a conversation like this. As Thibaut has said, we all know that human rights has been brought into the WSIS process and that we’re looking to see how we can continue that engagement and strengthening in the WSIS Plus 20 review. But also, of course, we were quite pleased with the outcome of the Global Digital Compact that really sees human rights as a cross-cutting thread in each of the chapters and has really actionable steps that can be taken in this regard. But I think the most important point I wanted to say in introduction is the way we frame this conversation is important. We really want to start off by talking about how human rights can help, how it can be a tool that allows us to be able to deliver on the benefits that we see from digital technology and AI, and allow them to achieve their greatest purpose for people on the ground in all localities. And through that, of course, do it in a way that avoids the risks and makes it more certain that we’re able to achieve the benefits that are potentially there but sometimes might get lost. If we don’t, in advance, think through how will these technologies relate with real people and how will they be able to deliver the results we seek. And that’s what human rights due diligence is all about. It’s sort of a long phrase which we even, in that horrible UN way, tend to use an acronym of HRDD. But really, it’s just about thinking through what will the impacts of this technology be on people and how can we make sure that it achieves for people what we want it to and avoids or mitigates as many of the risks as we can at the same time. OHCHR, of course, is itself very engaged in this process and, as I said, really looking forward to being able to support the process as it moves forward in terms of how we can bring these issues both into WSIS the WSIS Review, but into the work of UNGIS and through the GDC as well. So with us today in spirit, if not in physical reality, we have a very esteemed panel that I’m happy to now introduce. Unfortunately, some things have interfered and are not actually with us, but I’m assured by our technical colleagues that we will have access to all of them. I would like to introduce them now, and then I’ll go to a question right away. So the three people that will be with us online are Her Excellency Lavina Ramkissoon, who is Ambassador from the African Union, and my good friend Gbenga Sison, who is the Executive Director of the Paradigm Initiative and on the IGF Leadership Panel. It’s good to have you with us, Gbenga. And then also Fiona Kira-Pietre, the Head of Human Rights at Nokia, and it’s very great to have that perspective, the business perspective brought into the conversation as well. So I’m going to tee it up for them in a fairly easy way with just a general question about why do you think human rights due diligence is useful for technology? What’s motivated you in this space and what positive impacts have you seen? And I think, are we still having some problems with getting the Ambassador online? We don’t have her yet? No, we do. Okay, perfect. Then I’d like to turn the floor to Ambassador Ramkissoon to answer that first question.

Lavina Ramkissoon: Thank you so very much, Madam Moderator and the audience, definitely in spirit, and apologies ahead of time. So this is, the question of human rights and due diligence is really sort of the center focus when we have to talk about the sort of African continent. When we really start thinking and unpacking a little bit about HRDD, it really then starts to what we believe is lend and give us a framework, a framework in terms of surfacing a lot of the hidden sort of harms that may or may not be there. And You know, as such, I think it is allowing us to see a lot of the invisibility of what actually is the net effect of what is actually happening alongside us. To quote one of the previous UN higher commissioners, I think it was Navi Pillay who really said that human rights is not an obstacle to innovation, but it is a compass. And I think this becomes even more true as we sort of engage into the sort of digital realm of things. You know, how we embed it and how that becomes so ingrained and part and parcel of how we function really determines the sort of digital divide that we end up with or not. So let me stop there and pass over to the other colleagues.

Peggy Hicks: Great. Thank you. A wonderful start. I really like that compass imagery from High Commissioner Pillay and allowing us to look more visibly at the impacts that are surfaced through this type of analysis. I’m going to turn next to Benga Sassan. Benga, are you with us?

Gbenga Sesan: 100 percent, though virtual. Hello. Yes, thank you so much, Peggy. It’s great to be able to join, although virtually, and this is a topic that I’m very excited about. We were just having conversations about this last week, so I’m glad that we’re also continuing with this important conversation. I think that centrally human rights or whatever name we call it, and I want to maybe, you know, talk about dignity of the human person right now is a core need. Everyone wants to be respected. Just try to remember the first time you met the person sitting beside you earlier today. If they were kind to you, you are definitely going to listen more when they speak. If someone walks past you and sort of even disrespects you, when they speak there’s almost an automatic response that you’re giving, you know, even in your body language, you’re like not listening to them because everyone wants to be respected. We remember, like they say, how people treat us even before we remember the things they’re saying. So human dignity is a core need. We all want to be respected. We want our rights to be respected. Now where there is a challenge is that business models don’t always respect rights. And that is a problem, you know, that we need to admit. There are many times when businesses say, oh, you know, we’re going to do good. We’re going to make sure nothing goes wrong. But more often than not, some businesses have to choose certain things that don’t exactly respect rights. I mean, I don’t need to talk about the extractives industry. I don’t need to talk about even the data economy that we’re in many times. This is the one reason why we need to talk about human rights due diligence, where we need to bring business models back to the table, break it down, analyze it, and ensure that there is a balance between people and profits. There are times when the focus is on profits and people get forgotten. There are times when arguments are made that, well, if you focus on people alone, there’ll be no profit and no company will exist. So we need to find that bite point, that balance between people and profits, making sure that, yes, you can make profits, but you don’t make profits at the expense of people. Of course, it then brings, you know, the central question that I always love to ask, is human rights good for business or do businesses suffer when they try to respect rights? My answer to that is yes, and I’m going to use my sector, the digital sector, as a very good example. Right now, the new economy, the data economy, the gig economy, is built on the concept of trust. If I don’t trust you, I won’t give you my data. If I don’t give you my data, you can’t process it. If you don’t process it, you can’t make money from that particular process. And guess what? What makes me trust you is when you respect my rights. So if you respect my rights, I trust you, and you can use my data, and we can both win. You make money, I’m respected. And this is the major reason why I believe that human rights due diligence is important, because many times businesses forget that rights and trust are at the center of the sustainability of their whole system. So when they need reminders, human rights due diligence does that job for them.

Peggy Hicks: Thank you. Thank you so much, Benga. And I love the way that you brought in the dignity of the person, because we do as a lot of lawyers in the room, probably some technologists, we sometimes forget what the conversation can be about. And that linking of the people to the business models and the approaches is crucial. And it’s actually a very good bridge to turn the floor to Fiona Chiaropetri, who’s head of human rights at Nokia, who obviously has tons of experience in this. So it’s a leading company that’s obviously facing these issues on a day-to-day basis. Over to you,

Fiona Cura-Pietre: Fiona. Thank you very much. It’s an honor to be speaking here, even if it’s just virtually. So thank you very much for the invite. So why is human rights due diligence important? Well, for Nokia, I mean, it’s obviously the right thing to do. I mean, we’re active in over 120 countries, and we want to deliver connectivity in a responsible way. And in order to do that, we must have a way to look at what our biggest risks are and mitigate those risks. And that’s where our human rights due diligence process comes in. You know, responsible business is a key part of our sustainability strategy, and we take pride in having strong ethical practices. It’s not just that. I mean, our stakeholders demand it as well. It’s not just the right thing to do. It’s demanded from us, from regulators, including export regulators, investors, structured financers, customers, and much, much more. It’s just the right way to do things. And I would say I would even go as far as to say it’s more profitable to do it this way than end up with something going wrong, and then you have reputational hits, and then you have all sorts of other different troubles. So it’s just the right way to do things. And it’s the best way to do things, in our opinion.

Peggy Hicks: That’s really wonderful to hear that you’re so positively answering the question that Benga asked as well about, you know, is human rights good for business? And the case that it’s actually the best way to do business in that you avoid those risks. And that’s what’s proven by the approach that Nokia is taking with regards to human rights due diligence. I’m going to turn to the online panelists again for one more question, and then we will, if we have time, try to open it up to the room as well for a couple of questions. But going back to Ambassador, your perspective from the AU, could you give us a sense of how you think we could build awareness of and support for human rights due diligence? Fiona mentioned that part of what drives companies to do this is also that stakeholders are demanding it. And sometimes we wonder, you know, whether consumers are really at the table and engaged in the conversation, certainly investors, as she mentioned as well. But how do we make sure that we have the awareness and support for human rights due diligence that we need, Ambassador?

Lavina Ramkissoon: Yeah, thanks so much for that. I think, you know, to continue on what Fiona sort of mentioned, I think around community being a fundamental block, you know, as part of that solution is definitely one area to look at. You know, generally speaking, I think human rights has really been about storytelling, you know, to a large degree, opening this up further to ensuring, you know, open halls and town halls, or even finding, you know, other areas of awareness and, you know, buy-in that is required is fundamental. Culture is something that is, again, you know, the cornerstone of all of that. And it becomes, you know, one where it’s a mind shift, mindset shift that’s required. So some say this is probably the hardest problem for us to solve in today’s day and age is, you know, changing the human mindset. But, you know, I think that definitely then lends itself into, you know, having sustainable models around human rights, especially given in the age of AI. where I think things like child rights and that awareness needs to become quite larger and louder. In addition to that, I think Gbenga Sison mentioned digital dignity and us putting together something like a digital dignity index or having an impact audit or assessment that is there to understand what is the actual net effect again that is being interpreted or being absorbed by everyone. At the end of the day, awareness is one thing, buy-in is another but sustainability is probably where we’re really after when it comes to ensuring that this digital universe that we have is not just bending towards justice but it is something that we are consciously contributing to all the time. Great, thank you so much Ambassador.

Peggy Hicks: That awareness, buy-in and leading to sustainability I think is just a wonderful framework for how we think about this and you gave us some good tips on how we might be able to get there. Fiona, I’m going to turn to you next and obviously coming from your perspective in the private sector, could you give us a little bit more detail about how you’re building human rights due diligence into your work and what tangible results you’ve seen on your side?

Fiona Cura-Pietre: Sure, so first of all the cornerstone of how we look at human rights is based on the UNGPs, so that’s how we look at it and the salient risk for Nokia, maybe if I back up a second, so we sell communications networks, we sell fixed networks, IP networks, mobile networks, data center technology, that’s what we sell and we sell to operators, service providers, enterprises and governments. So the salient risk for Nokia is the potential misuse of our technology by those customer groups to infringe on freedom of expression or right to privacy. So, to mitigate this, we have a human rights due diligence process, and we do that as part of our sales approval process. So, it has to be preempted. It has to be before the sale is done, because that’s where our leverage is. It allows us to walk away and say, no, we don’t want to do this. Once the sale is done, basically, the deeds and the goods are gone, and we have no specific access to the technology. So, we do it before, and it’s institutionalized in our sales approval process. It’s a mandatory step. All sales need to go through this. It’s in our tools. It’s in our sales approval tool. But it’s not just that you need management support. Our human rights policy documents are approved by our CEO and our senior leaders. You need to have the management backing to be able to make decisions based purely on human rights, and that requires management backing to say, we’re not going to go after this deal, because we can’t mitigate the human rights concerns that we see. So, that’s absolutely critical when you’re doing this. And then, of course, you need to build awareness within the company, and it’s continuous training, continuous, continuous training, different kinds of training, but it’s never just a one-and-done. You need to make sure you’re reaching all those groups, all that person when he’s making that initial sales contact. It’s in his head. What are the things I should be thinking about should I be going after this deal? So, that’s very high-level how we implement it.

Peggy Hicks: I think it’s high-level, but very clear, I think, in terms of those three sort of key ingredients that you talked about. When it’s done in the process, and you do it before you’ve lost your leverage by already having committed to a deal to sell. The second piece of it all needs management support, and the human rights policy has to be real. You have to be able and willing to take the decisions that the process leads to. And then, the third piece is, as you said, sort of the continual awareness and training that needs to be part of it. Benka, I’d like to turn to you, finally, and ask you… You’ve obviously engaging quite a bit with protection of human rights and the people involved in it and innovation. And if you can tell us how human rights due diligence really helps to enable protection of human rights and helps us to make innovation more effective, that would be great. Thanks.

Gbenga Sesan: Thank you so much, Peggy. One is the fact that whatever we don’t document, we can’t change, right? And one of the advantages of the human rights due diligence process is it allows us to go through a series of documented and proven processes. We definitely need the opportunity to look at case studies. We can talk about the fact that human rights is good for business, but we need more case studies of how respectful rights, and like I said earlier, one of the things that we’ve seen is the role that trust plays in this data economy. And we need to see more examples. We need to see more examples of businesses that have made hard decisions. And I know that there are always the tough choices to make between maybe the engineering team and the policy team that says, you know what, let’s put people at the center. And we need to see more examples of that, the examples of the struggles and the examples of the outcomes where we can then make an argument, a very strong argument that human rights is good for business. And also when we, you know, in civil society, one of the tools that we use a lot is strategic litigation. And when we do strategic litigation, we need proof. You need to be able to state that this is what the process is. This is where there has been a deviation. This is where rights have been respected, and this is what could have been done. When we’re able to do that, one of the powerful tools that we’re able to rely on is the business and human rights framework that the Office of the High Commissioner and other partners within the ecosystem have been able to work on. To say that this is a procedure that has been discussed. This is the convention. These are the principles that have been established as possibilities for human rights in business, and this is where there’s a deviation. And because there is a standard that has been set, we can then use that standard to make an argument that someone has made the least effort. Because to be honest, where we have a lot of problems is where businesses do just enough to meet legal requirements, and there’s a huge gap between doing just enough to meet legal requirements and doing enough to respect rights. So, that gap of just enough to meet legal requirements and enough to respect rights is the space where we need to put a lot more emphasis and where we’re glad that there’s a documented process that allows us to make arguments for

Peggy Hicks: address. Great. That’s really practical in terms of where we need to focus our attention and how to do it. Thank you, Benga. The panel’s actually been really good at keeping their answers short, but we’re still already behind schedule, which I think is how these panels tend to go. So, I have a final question for the three of you, and then we’re going to open it. I hope to be able to have a little bit of time for questions from the room, as I said. So, maybe if you could just give me like a one-sentence or two-sentence answer. As we said, we’re very fortunate to have the WSIS plus 20 co-facilitators with us, and so it’d be good to hear from you how you think human rights broadly and human rights due diligence specifically can be part of WSIS implementation going forward. Shall I just go in the same order? Ambassador, would you like to jump in first?

Lavina Ramkissoon: Yeah, thank you so much. That’s quite a pertinent question, and for me, we find ourselves in such a blended moment for now, because technology is shaping culture, and culture is shaping technology, and given that is the dynamic, in addition to the fact that AI is contributing to the content online, and so are humans. Somewhere between all of these, we’ve got to find a blend between the common phrase, man and machine. So, I think you know, besides being embedded in just the sort of cultural aspect of it, the dignity, accountability, and justice really need to be the sort of cornerstone points. In addition to that, I think, you know, things like having checkpoints in place, having, you know, algorithmic transparency becomes quite key. In addition to that, you know, how exactly are we maneuvering ourselves towards an era and a society where, you know, there’s multiple humanoids amongst us functioning and engaging together with, you know, humans at the same time. What does that sort of blend, you know, in the U.S.’s world sort of look like, and are we making enough provisions for that? In addition to that, you know, I bring up child rights just purely because, you know, on the continent being the largest, youngest population, it is something that becomes quite a key, you know, embodiment for us, ensuring that, you know, there is sufficient, you know, protection, but at the same time that there is no digital divide that is widening as a result of the progress or the adoption that is actually happening on a grand scale. So, you know, one of the examples that come to mind when both the other panelists were talking was something around, you know, what if every business had to, you know, allocate, you know, be it 5%, 10% of their sort of work towards any ethical, you know, sort of focus or ethical alignment that is required or needed to happen, probably in an idealistic world perhaps, but, you know, some of the examples that, you know, I earlier mentioned, whether it be around audit, whether it be around, you know, having an assessment or having, you know, some form of index for us needs to become the sort of guideline pillars as we sort of navigate this. there is no, you know, human rights is one of those areas that is super complex but yet it is, you know, comes almost intuitively to us, you know, naturally. So we need to kind of tap more into the natural sort of reaction states that we would turn towards. Thanks. Thanks very much. A

Peggy Hicks: lot of good touchstones for us to think about as the WSIS process moves forward. Fiona, your 30

Fiona Cura-Pietre: seconds. I’m going to have two points here. I think, first of all, you also need to have this, the human rights diligence built in your close R&D station, new products that are coming up, but also far out. So, for example, with Bell Labs a while back, we realised that there was a technology shift happening with AI. So we built six pillars of responsibility for our business when it made sense for our business. So that’s far outlooking. So, and then the second point I’ve heard touched upon by both other speakers about this transparency and assessments, Nokia is part of the Global Network Initiative, which is a multi-stakeholder group. And as part of that, the companies need to go through these assessments where external auditors come in and assess your practices and policies and processes. And there’s real life cases, real life examples, and it’s really quite thorough. And we find this a very, very useful way of having, getting input, getting voices from other stakeholders who we don’t necessarily get that much input from to see what their view is on our processes and policies. So these multi-stakeholder groups, especially like the GNI are very helpful for us. And also going forward,

Peggy Hicks: we will be very helpful in the future. Great. Now, Fiona, we work closely with GNI and I totally endorse what you’ve said. And it brings a point that I often have thought during AI for Good this year, is that we have a tendency to sort of refer to companies as a group, as if they’re all doing the same things at the same level. And if we’re really going to make progress, we have to start differentiating more. And if we do that with external audits of that sort, it actually gives us a firm foundation to say, no, there are good practices or at least better practices than some. And we really want to encourage that race to the top amongst the companies to get this right. Benga, over to you. Thank you. So, two weeks ago, we had a chance of meeting with the co-facilitators, I’m speaking of the IGF leadership panel, and we spoke to the place of human rights in the internet we want. And that leads me to the two points I want to make. Number one is the fact that as we continue with the research process, we must realize that when we have conversations about human rights and dignity, it has to be by default. It is not a nice add-on, it is not a tokenistic topic, it is not something we put campaign dollars behind, it is a default that we require. And I think the second is that there are frameworks for human rights, you know, in business, and the due diligence that supports that, that states already agreed to, that I believe we can do very easily into the WSIS implementation process, and the review process of WSIS itself, the IGF, and other elements of all the UN processes. Thank you. Thanks very much. So, I feel like it’s been a little bit rapid fire. I hope you’ve, we’ve been able to condense a lot of information into that short conversation. We do have about five minutes, so I can take a couple of questions and then sort of refer them back to the panel quickly. Who would like to come in? Hands? On the end there, please.

Participant: Hi, my name is Josiane with Child Rights and Business in UNICEF, and thank you, Ambassador, for sort of referencing child rights as well. And I just wanted to ask, you know, we see, I think, also in exploring the many startups that are present in this, in this forum, the potential also risks, human rights risks associated with small tech, and also many countries and governments being quite concerned with economic growth and preserving innovation. The panelists did kind of gesture to this, but I was wondering, what is the role of sort of mandatory measures in this space, in relation to some of those arguments that you’re mentioning, that human rights are also good for business, and those cases where actually it is? requiring costs and investment from companies to build in these measures? What is the balance, you think, between the mandatory measures and the voluntary measures, and what are some examples of good practice in encouraging the scale-up of these approaches?

Peggy Hicks: That’s a nice, meaty question, both on the child rights side, but more generally as well, I think, about the balance between. Maybe one other question, and I’m going to throw it back. Please.

Anna Oosterlinck: Sorry. Thank you. I’m Anna from Article 19. I just wanted to pick up on one point that was made by Fiona from Nokia, which I fully agree with, is that human rights need to be built in across a full lifecycle of all technologies, so ideally from pre-design all the way to export, trade, and further use. The second point I’d like to make is that for us, what would be important in terms of the WSIS process, review process, is to really anchor the UNGPs in there very clearly, because human rights-based language is, at the moment in the WSIS framework, fairly light, so we’ve been advocating very strongly with the co-facilitators to hopefully, throughout the process, to strengthen the human rights-based approach, but specifically, I think, the UN guiding principles, if we can really explicitly put those in and then build off the work from the OCHR, including from BTEC, and several great reports from UN special procedures, etc., then that would be, I think, a great point to start from. Thank you. Great. You must guess that we

Peggy Hicks: actually endorse that as well from the side of the UN Human Rights Office. Thank you very much. So, I’m going to go back to the panel. I’m sorry we don’t have more time, but I do think that the co-facilitators want to give them the last word, and we want to get people out of the room marginally on time. So, Ambassador, do you want to come back on the question that was asked about child rights and mandatory human rights due diligence for companies? Yeah. So, from an African

Lavina Ramkissoon: Union perspective, we obviously have two things in play at the moment, one being the digital transformation plan and the other being the Agenda 2063. So, given those two are the focus areas, a lot of everything is driven towards that. If you have to unpack what they mean and take a deeper dive into it, A lot of it speaks towards either an economic sort of impact or a balanced sort of narrative that is needed across the continent. So when we have to talk about impact towards a living standard, impact towards healthcare, impact towards GDP of a particular country or us as a continent, whatever the case may be, I think those are the sort of areas that everyone is nudging towards. In addition to that, I think when we have to talk about it from a corporate perspective, there are definite areas of alignment that can happen between what is happening on a sort of global scale, continental and, you know, internal. And therein always lies the sort of balance between the sort of digital, economic, social and infrastructural issues. And there is a framework that was developed a while ago around the four of these in particular that I would encourage you guys to perhaps have a look at in addition to it.

Peggy Hicks: Great. Thanks very much. Fiona, over to you. Obviously, in the EU context of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which I’m sure is informing your efforts in this area.

Fiona Cura-Pietre: Yeah. I mean, we have been supportive of CSF triple D or the iterations, some of the iterations that we’ve seen. So it often focuses on supply chain, which is, of course, important. But I think for us, what’s very important is it’s the guidance whenever it will appear and where it will appear for our sector, because a lot of the time, the guidance is for supply chain, which is critical. I’m not saying that’s not critical, but when we’re talking about the use of technology, that’s a different set of things. So we are supportive, definitely, of this mandatory due diligence, but that’s not the only reason we do it. We’re doing it now anyway, before there’s been a law. So yes, I think it’s helpful for level playing fields and these sorts of things. But it’s something that we do anyway, as of now, because we feel it’s the right thing to do as of now.

Peggy Hicks: Great, thanks very much. Benga? Uh, thanks. Just to emphasize again that the guiding principles exist. They have, you know, very useful language that we can engage in the process and that human rights is central. We must emphasize as much as possible, you know, any opportunity that we have in this process and implementation, human rights must be by default. Thanks very much. I just want to thank the panelists. I have to say, I walked into the room quite worried about how this whole virtual panel would work. I have to thank the tech people for seamlessly, it felt like they were in the room with us and I felt like the conversation pulled itself together very well. As I said, we’re very happy to have the co-facilitators with us, excellencies. I wanted to give you the floor, the last word in this conversation. If you have anything you would like to say about the next steps or how we can contribute or, you know, what you take away from this conversation. I’m not sure which of you would like to go first.

Suela Janina: Thank you very much. First, allow me to thank you for organizing this panel. It has been really fruitful. If you started with this kind of remark, Peggy, I think that it has really fulfilled the expectations. Uh, when we talk about this issue, we feel also the need to have more time. So, but let’s put it like a way that we will be continuing discussing this. We started in little storm. We have heard a lot of expectations, especially starting from the input that we have presented with the elements paper, but I need all the time to repeat the thing that it’s like incremental engagement that we need to have. So, we started with something and we need also to have into account some constraints in terms of of, of, of time, but it is important that, uh, what also has been mentioned by, uh, by the panelists is that, uh, the discussion in human rights in the WSIS, uh, plus 20 review is discussion. And the principle that we take with us also that has been also mentioned in all UN document is that human rights and fundamental freedoms should be protected online and offline in the same way. So we have seen, and for me, the picture that we take from this discussion is also a picture of reality that we are facing, each of us in our everyday life, that we have this great impact of technology on human rights in both ways. Technologies can be enables of human rights and we have seen it right in the access to information. But from the other side, if we don’t have the safeguards, they can be damaging or can be just infringing the enjoyment of freedoms and human rights. So we need to see that in both ways. A second element that it is important in my view is the fact that this enjoyment or protection of human rights should be seen in whole cycle of development of the technology. Another important element in my view is the fact that we need also to address, it has been mentioned by several of the panelists and also from the discussion we have heard, of categories in vulnerable situation, children, persons with disabilities, but also when we speak about women and girls empowerment. Because if we see today the big digital divide in gender that we have, we need really to focus on that element. So building also on some previous discussions we had at IGF, also the fact that there is a need also to more precisely refer to some UN documents that have set also the standard which we need not to lower but to uphold and to enrich them. So we have taken note of all of this and also one element that may be also important for yourself is the fact that we see also a growing role and we need to identify a role that the Office of High Commission should have in this discussion and also on the future improved architecture of UN in terms of also bringing the experience and expertise that you have on this discussion. So for the time being we have had a lot of useful inputs. What we need now is to go on the concrete stage of discussing the language on the zero draft that we are going to prepare. So the last call from my side it will be please be engaged and active with written inputs. We have also extended the deadline in order to accommodate the needs of different stakeholders to be prepared and to present them but we’ll be in contact through different ways in order that we see the ambition to have an outcome that will reflect also the objective to promote and to

Ekitela Lokaale: protect human rights. Thank you Peggy, thank you Thibaut and the panelists as well. First let me thank the panelists. I think they have done a great job in this discussion within the short time that we had. Now for us as co-facilitators we are at the point where all of us are engaged in the review of the WSIS and when you are reviewing an important process such as WSIS it’s important to keep in mind the original vision why we had it in the first place. there’s always the risk of running into specifics and then, you know, getting your eyes off the reason why we had WSIS in the first place, which is that we wanted a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. So even as we dig deep, you know, into important concepts such as human rights due diligence and so on, let us always keep in mind that even as we speak today, 20 years after WSIS, 2.6 billion people in the world are not connected. And, you know, in human rights, it’s always important to ask ourselves who is left behind and why? Because if we don’t ask that question, then you go on and on, on and on, you know, further widening the divide, further entrenching the divide, because then, you know, you sharpen, you know, the other aspects. So I think it’s important for us to remind ourselves. And there is no more human rights-centered vision in a lot of the outcome documents that we’ve produced as a UN community than the WSIS one, because what’s the essence of human rights? Is it not the inherent dignity of the human person? So when the vision says, you know, people-centered, inclusive, yeah, and development-oriented, I think it captures the whole essence of human rights. That’s my first point. Second, in both process and outcome, I think it’s important that we make sure that everybody gets to participate, there is accountability, there is non-discrimination in the process, you know, there’s equality and rule of law. Director, OCHR, and UHKM. My challenge to the rest of us, I speak as a human rights lawyer in addition to being a diplomat, is to keep asking ourselves why the 2.6 billion people are still not connected 20 years after we adopted the WSIS vision. So until and unless we look at the fundamentals that keep 2.6 billion people off the internet, we’ll continue building upon all these other concepts and we’ll not be crossing the digital divide. Then finally, we’ve been trying to live up to the expectation of a human rights-based approach in our engagement, which is why, for example, in creating the multi-stakeholder sounding board, we’ve made every attempt to make sure that different stakeholders from the technical community, civil society, women, men, I don’t think we’re lucky this time to get children on board, but I think that’s ambitious for next time. But it’s an improvement to create spaces where all these other groups, which are often left behind, are able to participate. We take your point that the progressive language on human rights, which has been adopted in recent outcome documents. needs to find its way into the zero draft and so on. As my colleague has said, it might not have been apparent in the elements paper, but it’s every intention on our part to make sure that it is strengthened, but not in a way that makes the process unnecessarily contentious, because sometimes as human rights people, and I’m one of them, like I said, we drum the language and in the negotiation process, we problematize it instead of, and it’s common, it should not be one that’s contentious. So I think I’ll give you the commitment on our part as co-facilitators to make sure that human rights runs through the document and really forms the basis of whatever outcomes will be put forward, because that’s what the WSIS vision is all about. People-centered, inclusive, development-oriented. So thank you again for having us. Thank you so much, both ambassadors. I think everyone in the room, I hope, shares my sense of gratitude, really, that we have two people who are looking at this in such an open, thoughtful, and human rights-based approach. I mean, it was almost like we could have written the talking

Peggy Hicks: points for some of what both of you were saying on these things in terms of the elements of the human rights-based approach. And I have to say, I’m not sure if in these rooms that’s always been so easy. So it’s really, really gratifying to hear the commitment that you have to looking at this. And Ambassador, I especially appreciate it. I had already written down that the approach that you’re taking is a forward-looking one, which is very important because we want something that will deliver for children, as the ambassador has emphasized. But also, it’s also looking behind. It’s also looking at who is being left behind currently and how we actually use this process to move things forward in a way that creates greater equity and greater inclusion. going forward. So I think those are critical points that you’ve made. We are very committed to the ongoing dialogue. Thanks again to the European Union and African Union for their partnership on this event and to all of you for participating. Very good to be with you today. Maybe a round of applause for our panelists.

Agreement points

Human Rights Due Diligence is essential for technology development and business practices

Speakers

– Lavina Ramkissoon
– Gbenga Sesan
– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Peggy Hicks

Arguments

HRDD provides a framework for surfacing hidden harms and making invisible impacts visible

HRDD helps balance people and profits by ensuring business models respect human dignity

HRDD is the right thing to do and demanded by stakeholders including regulators, investors, and customers

Human rights due diligence is about thinking through technology impacts on people in advance

Summary

All speakers agree that Human Rights Due Diligence is a crucial framework for identifying potential harms, balancing business interests with human dignity, and ensuring responsible technology development through proactive impact assessment.

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Human rights should be integrated throughout the entire technology lifecycle

Speakers

– Suela Janina
– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Anna Oosterlinck

Arguments

Human rights protection should be considered throughout the entire technology lifecycle

HRDD should be built into R&D processes for both near-term and far-out technology development

Human rights need to be built in across a full lifecycle of all technologies, so ideally from pre-design all the way to export, trade, and further use

Summary

There is strong consensus that human rights considerations must be embedded from the earliest stages of technology development through to deployment and use, rather than being added as an afterthought.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Trust is fundamental to the success of digital technologies and business models

Speakers

– Gbenga Sesan
– Fiona Cura-Pietre

Arguments

Trust is fundamental to the data economy – respecting rights builds trust which enables business success

It’s more profitable to implement HRDD than deal with reputational damage from violations

Summary

Both speakers recognize that trust, built through respecting human rights, is essential for sustainable business success in the digital economy, and that proactive rights protection is more cost-effective than dealing with violations.

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Privacy and data protection

Human rights must be embedded by default in WSIS processes, not as optional additions

Speakers

– Gbenga Sesan
– Ekitela Lokaale
– Anna Oosterlinck

Arguments

Human rights must be embedded by default, not as a tokenistic add-on to the WSIS process

Human rights-based approach should guide both process and outcomes with accountability and non-discrimination

Human rights language in current WSIS framework is fairly light and needs strengthening with explicit reference to UN Guiding Principles

Summary

There is consensus that human rights should be fundamental to the WSIS Plus 20 review process rather than peripheral considerations, with calls for strengthening the human rights framework and making it central to both process and outcomes.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Vulnerable populations require special attention in digital rights protection

Speakers

– Lavina Ramkissoon
– Suela Janina

Arguments

Child rights protection is crucial given Africa’s young population and need to prevent widening digital divides

Vulnerable categories including children, persons with disabilities, and women need special focus

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the need for special focus on protecting vulnerable populations, particularly children, persons with disabilities, and women, in the context of digital rights and preventing digital divides.

Topics

Children rights | Gender rights online | Rights of persons with disabilities

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers frame human rights as an enabling and guiding force for technology development rather than a barrier, emphasizing its role in maximizing benefits while mitigating risks.

Speakers

– Lavina Ramkissoon
– Peggy Hicks

Arguments

Human rights serves as a compass for innovation rather than an obstacle

Human rights serves as a tool to deliver benefits from digital technology and AI while avoiding risks

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers recognize that true human rights protection goes beyond mere legal compliance and requires companies to proactively adopt ethical practices regardless of regulatory requirements.

Speakers

– Gbenga Sesan
– Fiona Cura-Pietre

Arguments

There’s a gap between meeting legal requirements and actually respecting rights that needs emphasis

Companies should implement HRDD regardless of legal requirements because it’s the right approach

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the importance of institutional commitment and documented processes for effective human rights implementation, whether for internal decision-making or external accountability.

Speakers

– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Gbenga Sesan

Arguments

Management support and CEO-approved policies are essential for making human rights-based decisions

Documented processes enable strategic litigation and provide proof when rights violations occur

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Business case for human rights is stronger than compliance case

Speakers

– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Gbenga Sesan

Arguments

It’s more profitable to implement HRDD than deal with reputational damage from violations

Trust is fundamental to the data economy – respecting rights builds trust which enables business success

Explanation

It’s somewhat unexpected to see such strong consensus between a corporate representative and a civil society advocate that human rights protection is not just morally right but actually more profitable than violations. This alignment suggests a maturation in understanding the business value of human rights.

Topics

Human rights | Economic

Technology has dual nature requiring balanced approach

Speakers

– Suela Janina
– Thibaut Kleiner

Arguments

Technology can both enable human rights through access to information and infringe rights without proper safeguards

Current world reality includes surveillance, deprivation of choice and voice, and misinformation risks

Explanation

The consensus between EU and co-facilitator perspectives on acknowledging both the benefits and serious risks of technology represents a balanced, realistic approach that avoids both techno-optimism and techno-pessimism.

Topics

Human rights | Development | Cybersecurity

Need for mandatory measures while maintaining voluntary leadership

Speakers

– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Participant

Arguments

Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive represents move toward mandatory requirements, though guidance for technology sector use cases still needed

Balance needed between mandatory and voluntary measures, with consideration for economic growth and innovation concerns

Explanation

The consensus between a corporate representative supporting mandatory measures and a participant raising concerns about balancing mandatory/voluntary approaches suggests a nuanced understanding that regulation and voluntary action can be complementary rather than opposing forces.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

There is remarkably strong consensus among all speakers on the fundamental importance of human rights in technology development, the need for proactive due diligence processes, and the business case for rights protection. Key areas of agreement include the necessity of embedding human rights throughout technology lifecycles, the importance of trust in digital economies, and the need to strengthen human rights frameworks in international processes like WSIS Plus 20.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for policy development. The alignment between diverse stakeholders (government, business, civil society, international organizations) suggests strong foundation for advancing human rights in technology governance. The consensus on both moral and business cases for human rights protection indicates potential for sustainable implementation without requiring stakeholders to choose between ethics and economics.

Different viewpoints

Mandatory vs Voluntary Human Rights Due Diligence Requirements

Speakers

– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Participant

Arguments

Companies should implement HRDD regardless of legal requirements because it’s the right approach

Balance needed between mandatory and voluntary measures, with consideration for economic growth and innovation concerns

Summary

Fiona advocates that companies should proactively implement HRDD because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of legal mandates, while the participant emphasizes the need to balance mandatory measures with economic growth and innovation concerns, particularly for startups and small tech companies.

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Scope of Human Rights Due Diligence Implementation

Speakers

– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Gbenga Sesan

Arguments

HRDD must be integrated into sales approval processes before deals are finalized to maintain leverage

Human rights must be embedded by default, not as a tokenistic add-on to the WSIS process

Explanation

While both speakers strongly support HRDD, they have different perspectives on implementation scope. Fiona focuses on specific business process integration (sales approval), while Gbenga advocates for broader, default integration across all processes. This represents a tactical vs strategic approach difference that wasn’t expected given their shared commitment to human rights.

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus on the importance of human rights due diligence, with only minor disagreements on implementation approaches. The main area of disagreement centered on the balance between mandatory and voluntary measures, particularly regarding economic impacts on innovation.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high implications for practical implementation. The consensus on principles but differences on methods suggests that while there’s strong political will for human rights integration, the technical details of implementation will require careful negotiation to balance various stakeholder concerns, particularly around mandatory requirements and their economic impacts.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers frame human rights as an enabling and guiding force for technology development rather than a barrier, emphasizing its role in maximizing benefits while mitigating risks.

Speakers

– Lavina Ramkissoon
– Peggy Hicks

Arguments

Human rights serves as a compass for innovation rather than an obstacle

Human rights serves as a tool to deliver benefits from digital technology and AI while avoiding risks

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers recognize that true human rights protection goes beyond mere legal compliance and requires companies to proactively adopt ethical practices regardless of regulatory requirements.

Speakers

– Gbenga Sesan
– Fiona Cura-Pietre

Arguments

There’s a gap between meeting legal requirements and actually respecting rights that needs emphasis

Companies should implement HRDD regardless of legal requirements because it’s the right approach

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the importance of institutional commitment and documented processes for effective human rights implementation, whether for internal decision-making or external accountability.

Speakers

– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Gbenga Sesan

Arguments

Management support and CEO-approved policies are essential for making human rights-based decisions

Documented processes enable strategic litigation and provide proof when rights violations occur

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) serves as a compass for innovation rather than an obstacle, providing a framework to surface hidden harms and make invisible impacts visible in technology development

Trust is fundamental to the data economy – respecting human rights builds trust which enables business success, creating a win-win scenario where companies can be profitable while respecting people’s rights

HRDD must be integrated early in business processes (before sales are finalized) to maintain leverage, requires strong management support, and needs continuous training across organizations

Human rights must be embedded by default in the WSIS Plus 20 review process, not as a tokenistic add-on, with explicit reference to UN Guiding Principles

2.6 billion people remain unconnected 20 years after WSIS, highlighting the need to focus on fundamental barriers and ask ‘who is left behind and why?’

Technology can both enable human rights through access to information and infringe rights without proper safeguards, requiring protection throughout the entire technology lifecycle

Vulnerable populations including children, persons with disabilities, and women need special focus, particularly given concerns about widening digital divides

The original WSIS vision of people-centered, inclusive, development-oriented information society inherently embodies human rights principles and should guide the review process

Resolutions and action items

Co-facilitators committed to strengthening human rights language in the zero draft of WSIS Plus 20 review, building on progressive language from recent UN documents like the Global Digital Compact

Co-facilitators extended the deadline for written inputs to accommodate different stakeholders’ needs for preparation

Participants called to actively engage with written inputs for the zero draft preparation process

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to have a growing role in future discussions and improved UN architecture for digital governance

Need for more case studies and documented examples of businesses making human rights-based decisions to strengthen the argument that human rights is good for business

Unresolved issues

The balance between mandatory versus voluntary human rights due diligence measures, particularly considering economic growth and innovation concerns

How to effectively reach and protect the 2.6 billion people who remain unconnected to the internet

Specific guidance needed for technology sector use cases under emerging mandatory due diligence frameworks like the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive

How to navigate human-AI coexistence and prepare for a society with multiple humanoids functioning alongside humans

Bridging the gap between meeting legal requirements and actually respecting human rights in business practices

How to effectively change human mindsets and achieve cultural shifts needed for sustainable human rights implementation

Suggested compromises

Finding balance between people and profits in business models – ensuring companies can be profitable while respecting human rights rather than choosing one over the other

Incremental engagement approach for WSIS Plus 20 review – starting with foundational elements while acknowledging time constraints and building progressively

Strengthening human rights language in negotiations without making the process unnecessarily contentious – making human rights common sense rather than problematic

Blending mandatory and voluntary approaches – supporting mandatory due diligence while recognizing that leading companies should implement HRDD regardless of legal requirements

Balancing innovation and protection – ensuring human rights safeguards don’t stifle technological development while preventing misuse of technology

Human rights is not an obstacle to innovation, but it is a compass… how we embed it and how that becomes so ingrained and part and parcel of how we function really determines the sort of digital divide that we end up with or not.

Speaker

Lavina Ramkissoon

Reason

This reframes the entire human rights debate by positioning it not as a constraint on technological progress, but as a guiding framework. The compass metaphor is particularly powerful as it suggests direction rather than limitation, and connects human rights directly to digital equity outcomes.

Impact

This comment established a foundational framework that other speakers built upon throughout the discussion. It shifted the conversation from defensive justifications of human rights to proactive positioning of human rights as essential for effective technology deployment.

Business models don’t always respect rights… There are times when the focus is on profits and people get forgotten. There are times when arguments are made that, well, if you focus on people alone, there’ll be no profit and no company will exist. So we need to find that bite point, that balance between people and profits.

Speaker

Gbenga Sesan

Reason

This comment directly addresses the core tension in business and human rights discussions by acknowledging the legitimate concerns of both sides. It moves beyond idealistic positions to practical reality, introducing the concept of finding a ‘bite point’ or optimal balance.

Impact

This honest assessment of business realities gave the discussion credibility and practical grounding. It allowed subsequent speakers, particularly Fiona from Nokia, to engage more authentically about real-world implementation challenges and solutions.

The new economy, the data economy, the gig economy, is built on the concept of trust. If I don’t trust you, I won’t give you my data… What makes me trust you is when you respect my rights.

Speaker

Gbenga Sesan

Reason

This insight fundamentally reframes human rights as a business necessity rather than a compliance burden. It provides a compelling economic argument for human rights due diligence by linking it directly to the core asset of digital businesses – user data and trust.

Impact

This comment provided a bridge between human rights advocacy and business interests, making the business case more compelling. It influenced how other speakers, particularly from the private sector, could justify their human rights investments to stakeholders.

We do [human rights due diligence] as part of our sales approval process… before the sale is done, because that’s where our leverage is. It allows us to walk away and say, no, we don’t want to do this. Once the sale is done, basically, the deeds and the goods are gone.

Speaker

Fiona Cura-Pietre

Reason

This provides concrete, actionable insight into how human rights due diligence can be operationalized in business processes. It highlights the critical importance of timing and leverage in making human rights considerations effective rather than merely symbolic.

Impact

This practical example gave substance to the theoretical discussions and provided a replicable model. It demonstrated that human rights due diligence isn’t just about policies but about strategic business process design, influencing how other participants thought about implementation.

There’s a huge gap between doing just enough to meet legal requirements and doing enough to respect rights. So, that gap… is the space where we need to put a lot more emphasis.

Speaker

Gbenga Sesan

Reason

This comment identifies a critical implementation gap that often gets overlooked in policy discussions. It distinguishes between compliance and genuine human rights respect, highlighting where real progress needs to be made.

Impact

This observation shifted the discussion toward more nuanced implementation strategies and helped explain why legal frameworks alone are insufficient. It influenced the later discussion about mandatory versus voluntary measures.

Even as we speak today, 20 years after WSIS, 2.6 billion people in the world are not connected. And, you know, in human rights, it’s always important to ask ourselves who is left behind and why?

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Reason

This comment grounds the entire discussion in stark reality, preventing the conversation from becoming too abstract or theoretical. It connects human rights due diligence to fundamental questions of digital equity and inclusion.

Impact

This intervention brought the discussion full circle and provided crucial context for why human rights considerations matter in practice. It challenged participants to think beyond process improvements to fundamental questions of access and equity.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing human rights not as a constraint on innovation but as an essential framework for sustainable digital development. The conversation evolved from defensive justifications to proactive business cases, with speakers building on each other’s insights to create a comprehensive view of how human rights due diligence can be practically implemented. The most impactful comments successfully bridged the gap between human rights advocacy and business realities, while the final interventions by the co-facilitators grounded the entire discussion in the fundamental challenge of digital inclusion. This created a discussion that was both practically actionable and morally grounded, setting a constructive tone for the WSIS+20 review process.

How can we build more case studies demonstrating that human rights is good for business?

Speaker

Gbenga Sesan

Explanation

There’s a need for more documented examples of businesses that have made hard decisions prioritizing people over profits, showing the struggles and positive outcomes to make stronger arguments for human rights in business

What would a digital dignity index or impact audit/assessment look like and how would it function?

Speaker

Lavina Ramkissoon

Explanation

This would help understand the actual net effect of digital technologies and provide a framework for measuring and ensuring digital dignity

How do we navigate a future society where multiple humanoids function alongside humans?

Speaker

Lavina Ramkissoon

Explanation

As AI becomes more prevalent, there’s a need to understand what provisions are needed for human-AI coexistence in the WSIS framework

What is the balance between mandatory measures and voluntary measures for human rights due diligence, especially for small tech companies?

Speaker

Josiane (UNICEF)

Explanation

There’s concern about economic growth and innovation preservation while ensuring human rights protection, particularly for startups and smaller companies that may face cost barriers

How can sector-specific guidance for human rights due diligence be developed, particularly for technology use rather than just supply chain?

Speaker

Fiona Cura-Pietre

Explanation

Current guidance often focuses on supply chain issues, but technology companies need specific guidance for the use and deployment of their technologies

How can the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights be explicitly anchored in the WSIS framework?

Speaker

Anna Oosterlinck (Article 19)

Explanation

The current WSIS framework has fairly light human rights-based language, and there’s advocacy to strengthen this by explicitly incorporating the UNGPs

Why are 2.6 billion people still not connected 20 years after WSIS, and what fundamental barriers need to be addressed?

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

Understanding the root causes of digital exclusion is essential to ensure that human rights frameworks don’t inadvertently widen the digital divide

What role should the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights play in the future improved UN architecture for digital governance?

Speaker

Suela Janina

Explanation

There’s recognition of OHCHR’s expertise and experience, but the specific role in digital governance architecture needs to be defined

How can algorithmic transparency be effectively implemented and regulated?

Speaker

Lavina Ramkissoon

Explanation

Algorithmic transparency was mentioned as a key cornerstone for human rights protection in the digital age, but implementation mechanisms need further exploration

What would a framework look like where every business allocates a percentage of their work toward ethical alignment?

Speaker

Lavina Ramkissoon

Explanation

This was mentioned as an idealistic but potentially valuable approach to ensuring businesses contribute to ethical digital development