Đan Thanh wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on July 18, 2025. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.
First, I wish to extend my sincere thanks to Luật Khoa Magazine’s Editor-in-Chief, Trịnh Hữu Long, for his thought-provoking article, “Human Rights and Corporate Interests: A Civil Society Perspective from Việt Nam,” It offered fresh insight into an issue that has long weighed on my mind, and I would like to take this opportunity to expand upon a few of his key arguments.
Human Rights Remain a Novel Concept in Việt Nam – Let Alone Corporate Human Rights Due Diligence
I fully agree with the author’s perspective, especially as someone who has lived in Việt Nam for many years. While Việt Nam’s political framework, despite its many changes, has consistently emphasized human happiness, freedom, and comprehensive development, the reality on the ground tells a different story.
When it comes to business, this gap is particularly wide. The concept of “business-related human rights impacts” refers to a company’s effects on individuals, from labor exploitation and low wages to privacy violations. Such issues are tragically commonplace in Việt Nam and disproportionately affect vulnerable workers.
Consider the story of Thành, a 31-year-old delivery worker. After spending over 10 hours trying to collect a small amount of 375,000 đồng (approximately $15) from a customer for a cash-on-delivery order, he not only failed but also received a one-star rating, which subjected him to a 500,000 đồng fine from his company. His actual earnings for the task would have been just 4,000 đồng. This minor conflict tragically led to his death, leaving behind a grieving family.
Thành’s story is common because gig workers like him are not protected under Việt Nam’s 2019 Labor Code. Their relationship with companies is classified as a “business partnership,” not an employment contract, allowing companies to impose rules that benefit only themselves. These “partners” are treated more like disposable labor than equals.
This stands in sharp contrast to rulings in other countries. The UK Supreme Court has classified certain Uber drivers as workers, and France’s Supreme Court did the same for thousands of its drivers in 2020. These rulings recognized that systems like customer ratings constitute control and subordination, not partnership.
This comparison reveals a harsh truth: when human rights and corporate interests collide in Việt Nam, the former almost always lose. While human rights are acknowledged in principle, the lack of proper enforcement renders them meaningless against economic priorities.
This raises a troubling question: why do Vietnamese workers in the global gig economy suffer from such stark inequality compared to their peers abroad, working longer hours for less pay with no collective voice or institutional protection? They are perpetually excluded from the conversation about their own human rights.
Globally, Human Rights Impact Assessments Are a Common Practice
Here, I defer to the author’s greater experience. It is encouraging to learn that Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs) have become a routine part of legislative planning and corporate governance in many parts of the world.
Such practices represent a crucial step toward modern governance, where economic decisions are inseparable from human rights responsibilities. True transparency is achieved by involving multiple stakeholders, including businesses, their partners, and independent organizations.
However, for these assessments to be effective, they must be backed by clear standards, independent oversight, and equal access for civil society organizations. In Việt Nam, where critical voices are often suppressed and civil society is constrained, these conditions are largely absent. The author is right to conclude, “This will take a long time to achieve here.”
Localizing international standards on human rights requires not just political will, but a fundamental shift in how those rights are perceived and valued.
Why Don’t Businesses in Việt Nam Have Incentives to Respect Human Rights?
Changing corporate and public perception of human rights in Việt Nam is a daunting task, partly because global tech giants like Meta (formerly Facebook) and Google often choose to compromise with the authoritarian state.
To maintain access to a lucrative market, these companies frequently comply with government demands to remove “sensitive” content or share user data, effectively distancing themselves from civil society and violating principles of free expression and privacy.
From my own observation, this compromise is very real. By sidelining the civil society groups that educate the public, they help foster a censored online space dominated by trivial entertainment. With low public awareness, rights violations go unchecked, and any momentum for reform dies.
As someone born after 2000, I’ve felt this suffocating effect firsthand as mindless entertainment erodes critical thinking. It brings to mind Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death: when a society reduces all public discourse to amusement, it loses the capacity for serious thought and slides into cultural collapse.
The result is a passive public and performative community activities—warning signs of cultural decay. This compromise between tech companies and the state isn’t just a matter of business ethics; it builds invisible walls that block citizens from developing the understanding of human rights essential for a democratic, fair, and civilized society.
The Persistent Dilemma: Are Human Rights Always Second to Business?
The author’s final point resonates deeply: human rights are consistently treated as secondary in business decisions. Despite lofty declarations, when rights conflict with the profits of powerful entities like Meta, they are usually sidelined.
This reality raises a troubling question: can tools like Human Rights Impact Assessments truly change corporate behavior when faced with such enormous economic and political power?
I wonder if human rights will ever gain meaningful traction until they are presented not as an ethical burden, but as integral to a company’s own economic interest, brand identity, and long-term sustainability. Only when companies realize that respecting rights protects their own workforce and reputation will human rights find a rightful place in business strategy.
This is why the approach suggested by Trịnh Hữu Long—integrating human rights into business interests—is both practical and necessary.
I continue to hope for a future where Việt Nam adopts a development model that sees economic growth and human rights not as mutually exclusive, but as complementary pillars.
Advancing business and human rights in Việt Nam remains a long and difficult journey, but a shift in collective awareness, seeing rights not just as a slogan but as a driver of sustainable development, is the essential first step.