Trịnh Hữu Long wrote this article in Vietnamese, published in Luat Khoa Magazine on July 7, 2025.
In Việt Nam, the phrase “human rights” is loaded—often misunderstood, politicized, or dismissed entirely. The idea of evaluating a corporation’s impact on human rights—something that’s increasingly common worldwide—remains virtually unheard of in our national discourse. It would not be an exaggeration to say that such a notion is so.
Yet, conducting human rights impact assessments (HRIAs) has become an established practice globally. These assessments are used not just by governments when crafting legislation or launching new public projects, but also by corporations, particularly those whose operations affect large populations, sensitive political environments, or vulnerable communities. Businesses in industries ranging from mining to telecommunications are increasingly expected to evaluate how their activities influence the rights and well-being of people affected by their presence.
So, who conducts these human rights assessments? In many cases, the companies themselves take the lead, often in collaboration with business partners, academic institutions, or independent human rights organizations. The goal is to identify and mitigate harm before it becomes a legal, reputational, or moral crisis.
I recently had the opportunity to participate in such a project, partnering with two leading international organizations: ARTICLE 19 and Ranking Digital Rights (RDR). I joined the initiative as a representative of the Legal Initiatives for Vietnam (LIV), the organization behind Luật Khoa magazine. Together, we embarked on a first-of-its-kind effort: to evaluate the human rights impact of Facebook’s operations in Việt Nam, from a civil society perspective rooted in the local context.
Until now, such evaluations of Facebook in the country had been conducted primarily by consultancies based abroad, typically in Singapore. These firms, while professional and capable, often lack the on-the-ground experience or cultural understanding to fully grasp how corporate behavior interacts with political dynamics in Việt Nam.
During this project, I had a chance to meet a representative from BSR, one of the well-known consulting firms that previously carried out such reviews. Their expertise is valuable, but there is no substitute for the insights of local voices, especially when dealing with censorship, online safety, and platform accountability.
Before we began the evaluation process, I underwent training on the CLARITI methodology developed by RDR. The training sessions brought together experts from across the region and beyond, including participants from Taiwan and Myanmar.
Listening to their experiences, I was struck by an unexpected trend: in some countries, particularly Taiwan, companies actively compete for higher scores in human rights impact rankings. These rankings have become a form of soft regulation—an incentive structure where good behavior is rewarded with reputational gains.
At first glance, these assessments may seem like toothless exercises in public relations. But the truth is, they can have a significant influence. When done credibly and transparently, HRIAs serve as a mirror—forcing companies to confront the consequences of their decisions. And for firms that operate across borders, a poor human rights score can damage investor confidence, trigger regulatory scrutiny, or erode consumer trust. This is something that Vietnamese businesses and policymakers would do well to understand.
Back to the project at hand: the results of our evaluation, which I conducted alongside two Vietnamese experts—Hoàng Minh Trang and H’Bdap Krong—were released at the end of May 2025. The findings were sobering.
Our assessment concluded that Facebook’s operations in Việt Nam have had a significantly negative impact on human rights. The platform has not only been complicit in state-sponsored censorship but also dangerously ineffective at curbing the spread of scams, hate speech, and human trafficking. More troubling still, Facebook’s algorithms systematically amplify state-sponsored narratives and entertainment while suppressing the visibility of independent voices, activists, and civil society initiatives.
This isn’t just an abstract problem of data ethics or platform neutrality—it’s a direct threat to freedom of expression and democratic engagement in a country where such rights are already fragile.
Through this project, we also gained deeper insights into the technology sector in Southeast Asia, particularly the complex relationship between tech companies and authoritarian governments. It became clear that many multinational firms, including Facebook and Google, are extremely cautious in countries like Việt Nam. The political sensitivities are such that these companies rarely engage directly with local civil society organizations. Their approach is often risk-averse, secretive, and non-confrontational.
That said, we did see some signs of progress. Specific business associations within the tech industry have shown greater openness to dialogue. For instance, through the Global Network Initiative (GNI), we participated in joint online sessions that included representatives from Facebook, Google, and dozens of other companies. These multi-stakeholder forums allow civil society actors to speak directly with corporate decision-makers, even if only for a few minutes, and often under tightly controlled conditions.
Still, the broader truth remains sobering: human rights remain a secondary concern worldwide. In most places, profit, market share, and regulatory compliance outweigh considerations of ethics, equity, or justice. And in places like Việt Nam, where civic space is tightly restricted, the prospects for meaningful accountability remain slim.
Does that mean human rights impact assessments are futile? Not necessarily. Their effectiveness may be limited in the short term, but they plant seeds for longer-term change. More importantly, they introduce a new way of thinking that links business success with social responsibility. When human rights are seen not as a burden, but as a component of sustainable business, they occupy a more central role in corporate strategy.
That is precisely what the CLARITI framework aims to achieve. It encourages companies to assess whether they comply with local law and respect universal human rights standards. It asks companies to look beyond shareholders and consider their obligations to users, employees, and communities.
In the end, human rights and corporate interests are not mutually exclusive. When aligned properly, they can reinforce each other. For civil society actors in Việt Nam and beyond, our role is to keep pushing for that alignment—to demand, through persistent and credible analysis, a digital age defined by transparency, accountability, and human dignity.