In 2016, my Freedom Fund colleagues and I met with lawyers preparing to represent three Eritrean refugees in a case against Nevsun, a Canadian mining company. The men alleged they had been conscripted through Eritrea’s military service and forced to construct a gold, copper, and zinc mine. According to the lawsuit, they and a thousand others were subjected to violence and inhumane treatment, forced to work 12 hours a day and beaten with sticks. Nevsun claimed they had never used forced labor and argued that since the abuses occurred in Eritrea, the case couldn’t be tried in Canada.
Although academics have described Canadian mining companies as operating with “effective impunity” for human rights abuses abroad, the lawyers believed they had a chance, and we provided a grant for their legal costs. Ultimately, the Supreme Court set a precedent by ruling that Canadian companies operating abroad could face legal action in Canadian courts for violations of customary international law, including forced labor. In 2020, Nevsun agreed to a confidential settlement with the plaintiffs outside of court.
Cases like this one — and the investigations and ecosystem-building work they require — can deliver justice while also rewriting the rules for entire industries. For donors claiming to embrace risk-taking and big bets, strategic litigation is a compelling investment opportunity.
Since 2015, the Freedom Fund has supported more than 20 legal cases related to modern slavery, funding everything from preliminary research and gathering evidence to case filings, appeals and wrap-around support for the individuals involved. We see these cases as key strategies to influence corporate behavior, protect vulnerable groups, and hold companies accountable for human rights and climate harms.
The cases we support are deemed “strategic” because they are filed with a larger ambition to promote societal and legal change, beyond bringing justice to the plaintiffs. Lawsuits are often brought with support from civil society organizations, and they tend to be more impactful when used alongside tactics like advocacy, media campaigns, complaints to regulatory bodies, and investor and consumer engagement. With more donor support, civil society could fully harness this mechanism to protect millions more workers.
When these approaches are effective, they can bring about transformative change that reaches workers at a much greater scale than direct services work. And yet, they receive only a fraction of human rights-focused funding from a small group of donors: in 2021, 2% of foundation human rights funding went to litigation and legal aid, mainly in North America.
What is scaring donors away? Funding for legal cases can feel high risk, with uncertain rewards. It requires long time horizons, and it is nearly impossible for organizations seeking funding to guarantee a result. It can be messy, leading to unintended consequences and public backlash, and often requires confidentiality to protect all parties involved. Donors may feel daunted, believing that they lack the legal knowledge or grantmaking practices, or they may worry that strategic litigation is elitist, as it can be seen as taking place apart from communities.
Localization-minded donors can also invest in broader efforts to build the strategic litigation ecosystem, enabling Global South-based NGOs, lawyers and activists to play more active roles in identifying, filing and pursuing transnational cases. So far, we’ve supported organizations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Thailand to lead their own corporate accountability initiatives, setting the groundwork for future cases and ensuring that communities can speak for themselves.
Donors might also consider funding NGO investigations which can trigger government enforcement. For example, we’ve invested in the submission of evidence of supply chain abuses under the U.S. Tariff Act, which can lead the government to enact temporary import bans against corporations. One of the most cited examples is a 2020 ban against subsidiaries of Top Glove, the world’s largest rubber glove company, which led to $27.5 million in repayments to over 20,000 workers in Malaysia.
But our experience shows us that, when done thoughtfully, with substantial worker or community engagement and alongside complimentary tactics, the potential impact of these cases is worth the investment. Enterprising funders with bold, long-term visions are just the donor champions that this work needs. Thanks to a growing number of collaborative funds and other intermediaries like SAGE Fund, FILE Foundation, and the Freedom Fund, donors don’t need to be legal experts. A growing body of evidence about which cases are likely to succeed is enabling us to make smarter funding decisions, so that donors can trust that their risk capital is deployed responsibly.
Even when these cases stretch on for many years, they serve as beacons of hope and reminders that fighting for the greater good is worthwhile.
In March 2025, four Indonesian fishers filed suit against U.S. tuna brand Bumble Bee under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, alleging years of forced labor. Their case, which utilized investigations and research by Greenpeace, is believed to be the first case of its kind against the American seafood industry. Bumble Bee filed a motion to dismiss the suit, but a judge ruled that the fishers’ case will move forward. Hearing this news, Syafi’i, a plaintiff in the case, shared, “This gives me hope for justice for me and my fellow plaintiffs as we struggle for justice and change for the better. Our fight and sacrifice are not in vain in order to get justice for all of the fishers.”
Even if donors are wary of risk, people like Syafi’i are willing to take the greatest risks of all. It’s time philanthropy got behind them.
Nick Grono is CEO of The Freedom Fund and author of “How to Lead Nonprofits: Turning Purpose Into Impact to Change the World.” Find him on LinkedIn.
