Tech companies operating with opacity in Israel-Palestine

Only four of 115 technology companies operating in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and Israel have responded to a survey asking about the steps they are taking to avoid contributing to further harm in the conflict in Gaza.

Of the firms contacted by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) since December 2023, the only four that responded are Ericsson, Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), TikTok and Meta.

The BHRRC invited the companies to provide details of their approach to due diligence concerning human rights in the conflict areas.

“The private sector has a crucial role to play in ensuring it is not contributing to further harm in the region – and tech companies, in particular, must recognise their role in this crisis,” said BHRRC executive director Phil Bloomer.

“They must demonstrate they are straining every sinew to avoid worsening the disaster by undertaking ‘heightened human rights due diligence’ – identifying salient human rights risks and plans to mitigate them. This goes beyond what is normally required of companies, given the danger of perpetuating the conflict. And it starts with transparency.”

While only HPE reported having a human rights policy in place that includes specific measures on enhanced conflict-related due diligence, Ericsson responded that the presence of armed conflict is “an important factor” in its consideration of human rights, and TikTok was the only company to mention international human rights law.

The BHRRC said Meta did not respond to any questions directly, but did provide information on its efforts to combat misinformation and hate speech on its dedicated website.

The BHRRC, which regularly conducts these types of outreach exercises, noted the “astonishingly low 3% response rate is unprecedented” in the organisation’s history. In comparison, a similar survey ran by the BHRRC in relation to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine noted that 29% of companies responded to questions about their heightened human rights due diligence in the context of that conflict.  

While the scope of that survey was wider than technology companies, the BHRRC said the tech sector was the most responsive.

Commenting on tech firms’ “deafening silence” around how they are controlling their technology being used, Bloomer added that there is a real danger their unregulated actions will pour fuel on the conflict’s fire.

“With notable exceptions, their apparent sense of impunity sends a clear message to investors and governments: robust regulation and continuous engagement are critical to ensure respect for human rights by the tech sector,” he said.

The BHRRC added that the decision by 111 firms to not respond would appear to be a purposeful 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.

It further added that the “comprehensive response” provided by Ericsson, for example, about its heightened human rights due diligence efforts and 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.”

The BHRRC said the 115 technology firms 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.