Know Your Partners: Companies in a New Human Rights Landscape

In July 2025 and September, the United Nations published reports naming dozens of companies for alleged involvement in human rights violations in the Israel/Palestine conflict. In between, a UN commission concluded that Israel is committing genocide. These are determinations with far-reaching implications. Usually not because the companies in question are directly involved in the conflict, but because they contribute to it through their services, products, supply chains, and investments, and thus (unknowingly) become part of larger geopolitical, international legal, and societal questions.

For executives and investors, this means that the bar for due diligence has been raised significantly. Those who conduct business without full context and well-founded investment decisions risk being publicly associated with violations of international law without a credible response. Reputational damage and worse can occur before legal rulings are finalized. In this context, the inevitable conclusion is that companies and investors must know who they are doing business with and what hidden human rights risks may lie behind them.

The aforementioned UN publications fit into a broader trend in which human rights and geopolitics directly penetrate the boardroom. Whereas ESG criteria were once primarily a somewhat discretionary reputational matter, they now constitute a legal and strategic framework. The European Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), for example, requires companies to actively identify and address risks in their supply chains.

At the same time, societal pressure is growing. Several major pension funds have recently withdrawn from companies operating in conflict zones due to reputational and integrity risks. Although companies themselves are not direct participants in conflicts, they are assessed on their relationships and supporting role. This creates a new force field: those who do too little lose investor and customer trust; those who act too late are overtaken by public opinion or legislation.

For companies, the core question is therefore no longer whether due diligence is necessary, but how thorough it must be. The minimum is no longer sufficient. Organizations are expected to look beyond compliance alone.

For Dutch enterprises, this is not an abstract debate. Our economy is deeply intertwined with international supply chains. Financial institutions invest through funds that hold stakes in numerous companies named in UN reports. High-tech companies supply components that reach sensitive applications through Israeli partners. Energy and infrastructure companies work together in regions where human rights are high on the agenda.

And the context extends beyond the Netherlands. What is not yet required in The Hague today may become a matter of regulation or litigation in Brussels or New York tomorrow. And advocacy organizations often do not wait for the outcome.

Important too is the factor of uncertainty. Exact figures on Dutch involvement are scarce, and precisely this lack of visibility in the supply chain poses a risk. Without active investigation, it is impossible to state with certainty that one's own business operations are free from potential reputational or legal harm and operate in line with one's desired investment and partnership frameworks.

The core message is deceptively simple: know who you do business with. However, this is easier said than done, and in the case of complex conflict situations, requires more than standard compliance checks.

This begins with advanced integrity screening. Rather than simply checking sanctions lists or corporate registers, it requires thorough investigation into conflicts of interest, reputational risks, and hidden connections. Proximities works with sources ranging from open and semi-open databases to specialized human intelligence networks.

Furthermore, ESG scans are crucial in investment decisions. By proactively testing for human rights risks, organizations can avoid entering into relationships with clients or making investments that appear negative in a UN report months later, or that they cannot adequately justify when questioned about their choices.

Finally, continuous monitoring helps organizations respond timely to new developments. Conflicts change rapidly; what seems acceptable today may become subject to debate or public condemnation tomorrow. With continuous intelligence reports, companies can make strategic choices based on current threat assessments.

For executives, compliance officers, and risk managers, this means that due diligence is no longer an optional checkbox. It is a strategic necessity for business continuity and reputation protection.

Human rights and geopolitics are no longer distant abstractions, but factors that directly impact business continuity. Organizations that proactively examine their supply chains today prevent having to play defense reactively tomorrow.

The strategic question is therefore both sharp and constructive: Will Dutch companies have the courage to examine their partnerships before regulators, shareholders, or advocacy organizations do so publicly for them?