AI infrastructure and human rights: takeaways from the UN Global Compact session

On 8 October 2026, the UN Global Compact Academy brought together representatives from business, research and international organisations to discuss the human rights implications of the infrastructure powering AI. The session, AI & Human Rights: Powering the Future Through a Just Energy Transition, explored how companies can address impacts on workers, communities and consumers.

IHRB’s Andreia Fidalgo opened with findings from our briefing, AI Infrastructure: Rights, Risks and Responsibilities. A panel featuring Esther Black (SSE), Shilpa Joseph (Fairwork), Rashad Abelson (OECD), Lesley Matthews (Climeworks), and Eugenio S. Longo (Tata Consultancy Services) developed the discussion, moderated by Saskia Baer from the UN Global Compact.

Read Andreia’s reflections on the themes that emerged from the discussion.

Understanding who benefits and who bears the costs

I began by discussing IHRB’s new briefing and AI infrastructure and reflected on the challenges involved in making gains from ongoing expansion coexist with pressures on electricity networks, water resources, and household bills, alongside risks to construction workers. These impacts can be particularly severe for households already facing high costs or shortages and for workers in vulnerable situations.

Our discussion emphasised how much these impacts depend on local circumstances. Households already facing high bills or water shortages may be particularly exposed, while several projects in one area can compound pressures on shared resources. Employment benefits also need closer examination: construction jobs may be temporary or filled by workers from elsewhere, with fewer opportunities remaining once a facility is operational.

Following impacts across business relationships

The discussion connected AI’s physical infrastructure with the less visible labour supporting its digital systems, including data annotation, content moderation and model evaluation. In both, there can be considerable distance between people experiencing harm and companies with the power to improve their conditions.

Our new briefing makes clear that consistent with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, responsibility extends across business relationships: developers, contractors, investors, energy providers, and companies buying AI services each have a role in identifying and addressing human rights impacts associated with their activities and relationships. Assessments should follow those impacts through the value chain.

Engaging early to influence development

The examples discussed reinforced the value of understanding a place before committing to a project. Early engagement can inform site selection, design and partnerships, helping companies avoid adverse impacts and respond to local needs.

This requires recognising that communities have different histories, priorities and capacities to participate. Assumptions about what a project will offer can overlook existing concerns about housing, resources or trust in developers. Engagement is most useful when there is still room to change a decision.

Checking whether engagement changes outcomes

I found two tests discussed during the session particularly useful: whether people can speak freely and whether their participation can influence decisions.

A survey, consultation or grievance mechanism provides only part of the picture. Companies also need to understand whether workers and communities can raise concerns safely, whether those concerns receive a response and whether conditions improve. Independent evidence and workers’ own experiences are essential to that assessment.

This connects with our emphasis on giving people clear information, enough time to participate and an explanation of how their input influenced decisions.

Making resource pressures and trade-offs explicit

I referred to the experience of  Ireland to show how energy regulation can address specific system pressures, but wider questions about network costs, community influence, and benefit sharing still require attention. Indirect water use through electricity generation and greater efficiency per unit of computing can coexist with rising total demand if managed carefully.

The discussion also explored choices between electricity and water use, including where access to renewable power coincides with water scarcity. These trade-offs need to be assessed locally and explained openly to affected people.

Efficiency is part of this picture, growing client demand for energy-efficient IT and efforts to assess both the resource footprint and potential benefits of digital applications. A facility can use less energy per unit of computing while its total demand continues to grow. Assessments also need to account for water used in electricity generation, beyond the facility’s direct consumption.

Connecting demand, commitments and accountability

I also raised the issue of responsible demand: technology customers can question whether additional computing capacity is necessary, whether a less resource-intensive approach could serve the same purpose, and whether the scale is compatible with others’ needs and rights. Customers can also set requirements for lower energy and water use and equipment reuse.

The discussion highlighted the importance of connecting climate and human rights teams with those making procurement and investment decisions. Customers can set requirements for lower resource use and equipment reuse, while contracts and financing conditions can establish labour protections and other commitments.

Our work at IHRB  continues to stress the importance of labour protections in contracts and financing conditions, monitoring throughout a project’s life, and planning for closure and restoration. Community benefit agreements can secure negotiated commitments where communities are fairly represented and able to negotiate. Such benefits do not offset human rights abuses or replace responsibilities concerning remedy. Workers and communities need safe grievance mechanisms alongside access to courts and other legitimate routes.

The session closed by recognising that companies have established standards and experience to draw on. Lessons from energy, construction, and extractives can help businesses respond to AI infrastructure’s scale and pace, with due diligence shaping decisions early and continuing through the life of a project.

Read IHRB’s briefing, AI Infrastructure: Rights, Risks and Responsibilities.