From Business and Human Rights Resource Centre
Briefing
Switched off: Tech company opacity & Israel’s war on Gaza
BHRRC
Updated 16 May 2024
Two months after the International Court of Justice issued its ruling, warning of
a plausible risk of genocide in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), the
scale of human suffering in Gaza has grown exponentially. Conditions are
“apocalyptic”: as of 3 April 2024, the UN had recorded the killing of over
33,000 Palestinians, displacement of 1.7 million people, and the destruction or
damage of 60-70% of all homes in Gaza since 7 October 2023, in addition to
over 100 Israeli hostages still held six months after the killing of over 1,200
Israelis and foreign nationals. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights has noted with alarm attacks halting “humanitarian aid and other goods
necessary for the survival of the civilian population”, while the UN Committee
on the Rights of the Child has warned of “catastrophic food insecurity”, as
“children in Gaza are starving to death.” The Special Rapporteur on the situation
of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967 has recently
confirmed there are now reasonable grounds to believe that genocide is being
committed in OPT.
As this devastation continues, the spotlight is rightly turning to the private
sector – particularly technology firms – for its alleged role in augmenting the
suffering of a population under siege. As various UN bodies have repeatedly
emphasised, business is simply “never neutral” in conditions of conflict. To the
contrary, it has specific, international obligations to avoid contributing to abuse
or conflict through heightened human rights due diligence. This begins with
transparency on the assessment of human rights risks and plans to mitigate
them.
On this page
Key findings
Recommendations
Introduction
Analysis of company responses
The conflict in OPT and Israel is a critical test for the tech industry. And yet
alleged violations by tech companies operating in the region and recorded
since 7 October suggest due diligence is being routinely ignored. To date, these
alleged abuses have included:
provision of the use of AI to target Hamas, accepting large civilian casualties;
censorship and silencing of Palestinian narratives;
unlawful surveillance;
disinformation;
denial of access to internet and internet shutdowns;
failure to address hate speech and incitement; and
the monetisation of such content.
The human consequences of these abuses can be catastrophic. These range
from facilitating civilian killings in bombing campaigns; to limiting access to
lifesaving information, shelter and sanctuary from bombardment; to increasing
hostilities toward and discrimination against a vulnerable population; and
infringing on the right to privacy of millions, amongst others.
In December 2023, the Resource Centre invited 104 technology
companies operating in or providing services to OPT and/or Israel to respond to
a survey focusing on transparency and heightened human rights due diligence
in the context of the conflict. Our purpose was to provide a systematic picture
of tech sector human rights action in the context of the conflict and
humanitarian crisis in Gaza to highlight better and poor practice, and to
encourage learning for enhanced respect for human rights between companies
– a pre-competitive issue. As many of these companies closed 2023 posting
excellent shareholder returns, they have ample resources to deliver.
This analysis has proved nearly impossible. A mere three companies - Ericsson,
Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) and TikTok – responded in detail with
specific answers to our survey. Although Meta did not respond to our survey
question directly, it provided information on the efforts it has taken to address
concerns around its services in the context of this conflict.
The remaining 100 companies ignored the survey entirely.
This astonishingly low 4% response rate is unprecedented in the Resource
Centre’s history. It is a damning reflection of the sector’s commitment to
transparency as a foundational tenet of corporate accountability. The
implications for the people of Gaza are grave.
Our analysis found:
International standards on baseline business responsibilities in conflict
unequivocally require robust human rights due diligence policy and practice.
Only HPE has a human rights policy containing measures on “enhanced” due
diligence in conflict areas, but all four respondees report taking steps to
enhance their human rights due diligence efforts in the context of the
OPT/Israel conflict (TikTok, Ericsson and Meta) or in conflict in general (HPE).
HPE, Ericsson, TikTok and Meta report having taken risk mitigation steps in
response to the crisis, but only HPE and Ericsson have stakeholder grievance
mechanisms in place – a critical element in managing conflict-related hazards
for business.
Despite multiple reports on the role social media has played in contributing to
abuse in the conflict, of seven social media companies surveyed, only TikTok
and Meta provided detail on measures taken to combat dissemination of
misinformation, hate speech and incitement to violence post- 7 October 2023.
Ericsson provided robust information on its risk mitigation efforts, including
efforts to keep communication lines open for the people of Gaza. Given the
critical need for internet connectivity in the region, it is notable that other
telecommunications providers – including Altice, Ooredoo, Partner
Communications and SpaceX – ignored the survey and these questions
completely.
Failure by the majority of tech companies approached (excepting Ericsson,
HPE, TikTok and Meta) to respond to a basic survey on transparency is
especially concerning when compared with a previous, similar survey
undertaken following Russia’s military aggression in Ukraine. In that instance
26% of tech companies approached responded to similar questions regarding
operations, versus just 4% in respect of this conflict.
At a glance:
104
tech companies
were invited to respond to questions on heightened due diligence
Four
responded
Only 3 responded to specific questions: HPE, Ericsson & TikTok
One
company
has a human rights policy containing measures on enhanced due diligence in
conflict areas: HPE
Five
companies
responded to questions on Ukraine and not OPT/Israel
The human rights policies and practices of the three companies that
responded in detail to the Resource Centre’s survey, as well as Meta, which did
not respond directly to our questions, include areas for strengthening. But,
while civil society has raised concerns regarding some of these companies,
their answers indicate significantly better practice in comparison with the 100
companies that fell at the first fence of accountability: transparency. The
findings of this survey echo the long-stated concerns of civil society and
rightsholders regarding the tech sector’s opacity and unwillingness to engage,
as well as the related risks and consequences for human rights. This appears to
be a policy choice – the four respondees’ answers illustrate this is not rocket
science, and with adequate will and resources the risks of human rights abuse
can be mitigated as well as communicated.
In the context of conflict, these risks are materially increased. It is now urgent to
shift this dangerous course. Assertive action is required by tech companies,
which is well-detailed in a range of UN guidance. The comprehensive response
provided to the survey by Ericsson for example – from its heightened human
rights due diligence efforts to robust risk mitigation undertakings –
demonstrate better practice is possible. Investors and governments that
facilitate corporate profits and presence in the region must now insist on
heightened due diligence, risk mitigation, and stakeholder engagement in the
context of this conflict – as they have in others.
Which companies responded to our survey?
Unwillingness to take even these basic first steps increases the risk of business
complicity in conflict and humanitarian crisis, to the detriment of a civilian
population struggling for survival.
Recommendations
For companies:
Urgently apply the UN and OECD agreed standards for heightened human
rights and environmental due diligence across operations and value chains.
Ensure transparency regarding risk assessment and mitigation plans.
Actively engage with key stakeholders representing victims and vulnerable
groups on both sides in the design, implementation and monitoring of due
diligence.
Use the company’s individual and collective leverage to promote respect for
law, human rights, democracy and peace, and raise awareness of potential
harms and risks in conflict-affected zones, and to share learnings.
Ensure responsible entry and exit from conflict-affected zones.
Deliver consistent approaches to heightened due diligence across challenging
business environments to respect civilians and the rules of war, and avoid
double standards.
For investors:
Develop heightened due diligence plans and actively engage tech company
investees to insist on the same.
Use collective investor voice in tech sector to demand international business
standards are upheld.
Consult with independent experts, including from civil society, on the risk of
harm and mitigation measures necessary from investors to promote corporate
heightened due diligence, respect for law, democracy and peace.
For governments:
Establish legislative and regulatory measures consistent with international
standards of heightened human rights due diligence, with special reference to
the tech sector.
Provide urgent guidance to business enterprises on the application of
heightened human rights due diligence tailored to this conflict and other
conflicts, and insist on implementation.
Facilitate multi-stakeholder platforms to promote dialogue on business-related
risks to human rights in conflict, and ways to strengthen monitoring and
accountability in tech.
Rafapress via Shutterstock, licensed
Introduction
International human rights standards for business operating in challenging
circumstances provide clear guidance on the bounds of acceptable corporate
action in conflict, and seek to ensure irresponsible business is held to account
where those obligations are breached. The UN Guiding Principles for Business
and Human Rights (UNGPs), supplemented with guidance from the UN Office
of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, the UN Working Group on
Business and Human Rights, and the UN Development Programme are well-
defined: at a minimum, in conflict settings, companies must conduct
heightened human rights due diligence on their operations and supply chains,
and demonstrate transparency by reporting on these efforts, proportionate to
the scale and severity of the risks to people.
These basic expectations of business to properly assess human rights risks
and avoid contributing to the drivers and perpetuation of conflict has formed
the basis of the Resource Centre’s monitoring of tech company approaches to
their heightened due diligence responsibilities in the context of OPT/lsrael since
7 October 2023. In December 2023, we invited responses to a human rights
due diligence survey from 104 tech companies, including internet service
providers, social media firms, software companies (including those that provide
military and defence solutions), hardware and electronics companies. These
were selected based on their mentions in news articles on the conflict, reports
by digital rights organisations highlighting harms impacting people, and
research projects exposing companies’ involvement in the conflict.
This follows our similar work tracking companies' approaches to heightened
due diligence in the context of the 2021 coup in Myanmar and the 2022
Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Analysis of company responses
This briefing concerns a sector frequently recognised as high-risk for human
rights violations, operating in and providing services to a deadly conflict zone
and site of humanitarian disaster. Transparent, heightened human rights due
diligence should be an unquestionable priority for these businesses.
TRANSPARENCY
Shockingly low response rates, with disparities between company responses to
Ukraine and OPT/Israel human rights due diligence surveys
Clear, consistent and ongoing communication on human rights policies and
practices in a conflict zone is an essential first step in heightened human rights
due diligence. Of the 104 companies to which the Resource Centre sent a
human rights due diligence survey, a mere four responded. Three companies
provided specific responses to the questions: Ericsson, Hewlett Packard
Enterprise (HPE), and TikTok. Meta did not directly address the survey
questions, but it provided information on steps taken in respect of the conflict,
including an independent human rights due diligence report and
implementation plan, plus its dedicated website outlining the steps taken
during the conflict.
Moreover, the response rate stands in some contrast to similar work undertaken
on human rights due diligence efforts by companies operating in Ukraine in the
aftermath of the Russian invasion. There, we employed a similar methodology
and sent a survey to 72 tech companies, of which 26% responded. Moreover,
five technology companies (Hewlett-Packard Inc., Booking.com, Siemens, X
Corp., and Amazon.com) did not respond to the OPT/Israel survey but did
respond to the Ukraine survey. Eleven companies operating in both conflict
zones did not respond to either survey (Airbnb, Apple, Cloudflare, Dell
Technologies Inc., DJI Technology Co., Google, Huawei Technologies,
Microsoft, Spotify, Telegram and Texas Instruments).
HEIGHTENED HUMAN RIGHTS DUE DILIGENCE POLICIES AND PRACTICES
Policy commitments appear mixed, but all responding companies have taken
steps to enhance human rights due diligence in OPT and Israel
The UNGPs note that all business enterprises are required to exercise human
rights due diligence proportionate to the scale and severity of the risks to
people. Ensuring a business has a policy on heightened human rights due
diligence for conditions of conflict is a key step to ensuring a sustained
commitment to these principles, as in these circumstances, due diligence by
businesses should be heightened accordingly. UNGP 12 is also clear
businesses must consider international humanitarian law (IHL) in
circumstances of armed conflict to aid in avoiding risk of complicity in IHL
breaches, and thus it should inform due diligence policies and practice.
These companies have serious allegations against them - yet, of the
companies which responded to the survey, only HPE reported having a human
rights policy in place that includes measures on “enhanced” due diligence in
conflict areas. Ericsson acknowledged it does not have a standalone policy on
conducting heightened due diligence but stated “conflict is an important factor
in relation to the identification and assessment of human rights impacts across
Ericsson’s value chains…that is included in its overall human rights due
diligence.” TikTok and Meta did not provide information about how heightened
due diligence is addressed in their policies.
Heightened human rights due diligence policy commitment is an area tech
companies should strengthen to mitigate their potential roles in perpetuating or
exacerbating the conflict, and to ensure internal, sustained accountability.
Explicit policies aside, Ericsson, HPE and TikTok all responded regarding
enhancements made to human rights due diligence in conflict. Ericsson
considers conflict a significant factor in its identification of human rights risks. It
explicitly highlighted the conflict in Gaza has spurred further due diligence
efforts – the only firm to provide such information. Ericsson reviewed external
reports of mobile network failures in Gaza, confirmed the outages weren’t
linked to its operations, identified personnel safety as the top risk, and closely
monitored the situation. HPE provided more general information: it considers
enhanced due diligence in conflict areas, applying “processes for identifying
and assessing activities with heightened risk and potential impact, and
prioritising areas where potential harm could be most probable, severe,
widespread, and irremediable”.
TikTok was the only company to acknowledge IHL in relation to its business
operations in OPT and Israel.
MITIGATING RISK & TRACKING EFFECTIVENESS
All responding companies provided information on their risk mitigation
practices, although less detail on tracking effectiveness of these practices.
Risk mitigation and monitoring due diligence impacts is fundamental to
ensuring company efforts are fit for purpose and improve human rights
performance over time. Only Ericsson and HPE responded to questions
regarding the existence of stakeholder grievance mechanisms in operation in
the conflict as an aid to identifying and mitigating risks. Ericsson operates a
dedicated Ericsson Compliance Line. HPE also operates an independent
grievance mechanism, and generally aims to “identify, understand, and mitigate
risks while seeking input from affected parties, including workers and rights
holders”. HPE reported it has not received grievances regarding current
business operations in OPT and Israel.
Companies were also asked to reflect on the possibility of responsibly scaling
down or disengaging from the region as the conflict wears on. Only Ericsson
responded, stating it is “closely monitoring the situation and continues to
support its customers in Israel and the State of Palestine, with the primary
objective of maintaining mobile communication services”. It also highlighted its
commitment to holistic assessment of risks when considering leaving a market.
Ericsson also provided important reflection on steps taken to maintain
connectivity and prevent internet and communications shutdowns in OPT and
Israel, as specific risk mitigation requirements of telecommunications providers.
This includes provision of support and spare parts to mobile operators in both
Israel and the State of Palestine, as well as a commitment to providing
customary technical support to its customers. Ericsson emphasised its
continuous focus on data privacy while ensuring networks remain operational.
As set out above, of the social media companies approached for this survey,
including Meta, TikTok, X, Telegram, Pinterest, Google and Snap, only TikTok
provided a detailed response to the survey about its measures to combat the
dissemination of misinformation, hate speech and incitement to violence.
TikTok launched a “command centre” and allocated dedicated resources to
help prevent the spread of harmful content using evolving automated and
manual processes to remove such content.
Specifically, TikTok reported since 7 October it has removed over 1.5 million
videos and suspended more than 46,000 livestreams in OPT and Israel for
violating its Community Guidelines, including content promoting Hamas, hate
speech, terrorism and misinformation. Globally, it removed tens of millions of
pieces of content, over 169 million fake accounts, and more than 1.2 million bot
comments on content with hashtags related to the conflict during the same
period.
Although Meta did not respond to our survey question directly, it did provide
information on its efforts to combat misinformation and hate speech on its
dedicated website.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Further commitment to stakeholder engagement is essential for the sector
generally, and particularly in the context of conflict.
Stakeholder engagement is a cross-cutting theme in the UNGPs, as companies
are required to consult with affected stakeholders, their proxies and experts
who are able to inform about harms caused by their operations. This is of
critical importance in the context of conflict. Engagement plans and regular
identification of affected stakeholders and their representatives are essential
parts of this process, to which tech companies should commit to avoid blind
spots with significant consequences.
The response rate to the Resource Centre’s survey, combined with historical
concern by civil society regarding limited engagement by the tech sector, is
notable in this respect. Only Ericsson and TikTok specifically responded to
related questions, with Ericsson highlighting participation in discussions on
heightened due diligence in conflict-affected areas as well as specific
engagement with humanitarian organisations on OPT and Israel. TikTok
referenced consultations with OHCHR and a number of civil society groups.
EXERCISING LEVERAGE
No companies have reported using their leverage – an area for improvement.
Companies should exercise leverage to change the thinking and behaviour of
those increasing the likelihood of conflict or risk to human rights to limit their
impact, pursuant to UNGP 19. None of the surveyed companies provided
information about their leverage practices or public statements regarding the
ongoing conflict, although HPE referenced using “internal and external
channels” to condemn the actions of Hamas and express sorrow for “the
subsequent loss of all civilian life regardless of citizenship or nationality”.
Company responses to this survey question highlight an area for improvement
for the sector.
This briefing was revised on 16 May 2024 when some inaccuracies in our data
set regarding company contacts were brought to our attention, which we have
since corrected.
Further reading
More on business and human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and
Israel
Spotlight: Israel and OPT
The latest news and resources on businesses' human rights responsibilities in
Israel and OPT
Accountability in conflict: The problem of tech company opacity
Phil Bloomer asks what heightened due diligence efforts have been undertaken
by tech companies
|
|
About Us
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre
Our wonderful Global Team!
We work with everyone to advance human rights in business and eradicate
abuse.
We empower advocates….
We amplify the voices of the vulnerable, and human rights advocates in civil
society, media, companies, and governments.
Our Regional Researchers – located all over the world – go to local
communities to understand the impacts of businesses on the ground, and
regularly talk with businesspeople and government officials.
We release briefings and analysis, synthesising the work of hundreds of
advocates across the world and make recommendations for companies,
governments, regions, and sectors.
We strengthen corporate accountability…
We help communities and NGOs get companies to address human rights
concerns, and provide companies an opportunity to present their response in
full.
We take up alleged abuse quickly and directly with companies. We’ve made
over 6,000 approaches to companies asking them to respond to specific
human rights allegations. Our global response rate is 55-60%.
We systematically follow up on company responses, pursuing companies that
fail to respond adequately to allegations of egregious abuse. See examples of
our impact.
Advocates and communities thank us for eliciting responses from companies.
Companies thank us for providing them the opportunity to present their
responses in full.
We build corporate transparency…
We collect data on the human rights policy and performance of over 10,000
companies in over 180 countries, making information publicly available. We
engage with companies and governments to urge them to share information
publicly.
Our website is the only global business and human rights knowledge hub,
delivering up-to-date and comprehensive news in 11 languages. We receive
over 415,000 page views on our site every month.
Our free Weekly Update e-newsletter has over 14,000 subscribers around the
world, including advocates, activists, businesspeople, governments, investors
and the UN (Sign up / View archive).
Our approach
Focused on impact: We make a difference for vulnerable people and victims of
abuse. We highlight the efforts and struggles of human rights advocates and
take up alleged abuse quickly and directly with companies.
Collaborative: We seek to strengthen and support the broad business and
human rights movement, cooperating with allies and partners around the world.
We have a commitment to the global South, opening civic space, and
supporting human rights defenders.
Independent: We are independent of any government, religion, or political and
economic interest. We do not accept donations from companies, company
foundations or senior executives of corporations.
Fair and objective: We commit to represent fairly all sides of debates on
business and human rights issues. We highlight good practice as well as
criticisms of companies’ impacts and give companies a real opportunity to
respond in full to allegations of abuse before we post them.
Beyond the headlines: we draw attention to under-the-radar cases and
countries and forgotten victims, alongside those in the public eye. We highlight
emerging debates and issues.
Who are we?
We are 12 trustees and 70+ colleagues dedicated to advancing human rights in
business and eradicating abuse. We maintain expert knowledge of local
contexts through our team of researchers and other staff members located
across all major regions, including Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and
Central Asia, North America, Latin America and the Middle East. They are
supported by offices in London, New York, Berlin, and Bogotá. Our global team,
senior management and board have extensive experience working in the
human rights, development, and environmental fields and as academics,
philanthropy professionals, and former businesspeople. For more details see
our Meet the Team and Our Board pages.
Further Reading
Meet the Team
Our Board
Impact & Products
Strategic Plan
Annual Reports
Partners & Endorsements
Contact Us
|
|