Call to Action to NFBPWC and BPW International Members

• Advocate for gender-responsive migration policies that explicitly recognize business and professional women migrants as economic actors, entrepreneurs, and leaders, not only as vulnerable groups.
• Promote mutual recognition of qualifications, improved access to finance, and removal of structural barriers that limit career progression and business development for internationally mobile women.
• Engage with governments and UN processes to strengthen safe and regular migration pathways that support skilled mobility and entrepreneurship.
• Partner with chambers of commerce, employers, universities, and migrant-led organizations to mentor and support migrant women professionals and entrepreneurs.
• Ensure migrant women’s voices are represented in national and international policy discussions on migration, labor mobility, and economic development.

The second International Migration Review Forum (IMRF), held at the United Nations in May, reviewed global progress on implementing the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM). The forum brought together governments, UN agencies, civil society, employers, and migrant-led organizations to assess how migration governance is evolving in a period marked by economic uncertainty, demographic change, and increasing political polarization.

Overall, the IMRF reaffirmed that migration remains a core issue for international cooperation, but it also revealed widening differences in how states interpret its priorities. The resulting Progress Declaration was adopted, yet it reflected significant compromises between countries emphasizing human rights, development, and mobility, and those prioritizing sovereignty, border management, and domestic political considerations.

A key positive outcome was the continued commitment by many states to multilateral migration governance. A broad coalition—including countries such as Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Belgium, and Finland, alongside many African, Asian, and Latin American states—reaffirmed support for the GCM framework.

These governments emphasized that migration is a structural feature of the global economy and requires coordinated approaches that facilitate safe pathways, labor mobility, and protection mechanisms while respecting national sovereignty.

Labor-sending countries such as Bangladesh, the Philippines, Mexico, Morocco, Kenya, and Colombia highlighted the importance of migration for development through remittances, skills transfer, and employment opportunities abroad. They consistently called for safer and more regular migration pathways, improved protections for migrant workers, and stronger safeguards against exploitation in recruitment and employment systems.

The forum also reinforced commitments to migrant access to essential services, particularly healthcare.

The declaration reaffirmed support for migrant-inclusive health systems and continuity of care, recognizing that exclusion from healthcare has both human rights and public health implications. Broader discussions also covered ethical recruitment, trafficking prevention, climate-related displacement, and the role of local governments in integration.

A significant but still underdeveloped theme throughout the IMRF was the situation of women migrants, including business and professional women, skilled workers, and entrepreneurs. While there was no dedicated framework for migrant women entrepreneurs, gender-responsive migration governance was repeatedly referenced in side events and advocacy interventions.

Women now represent a substantial share of global migrants and contribute across sectors including healthcare, education, business, finance, and professional services.

However, participants highlighted persistent structural barriers affecting women migrants, particularly those in professional and entrepreneurial pathways.

These include:

• limited recognition of foreign qualifications,
• restricted access to capital and credit,
• visa and mobility constraints,
• unequal caregiving responsibilities,
• and reduced access to senior professional networks and leadership opportunities.

For business and professional women migrants, these barriers often compound, limiting career continuity and business scalability despite high levels of skills and experience.

Civil society organizations emphasized the need to move beyond viewing migrant women primarily through a vulnerability lens. They called for recognition of women migrants as economic actors, entrepreneurs, employers, and contributors to innovation and growth instead.

This approach includes better alignment between migration policy, labor market systems, and entrepreneurship support ecosystems, particularly for internationally mobile women professionals.

At the same time, the IMRF exposed growing tensions in global migration governance. Many civil society groups and labor organizations expressed concern that the final declaration did not sufficiently strengthen protections for migrant workers, and that rights-based language was weakened during negotiations.

There were concerns that migration governance is increasingly shifting toward a more enforcement- and management-focused model rather than a rights-centered one.

State positions also reflected increasing divergence. Many European countries have moved toward a “managed migration” approach that combines support for international cooperation with stronger emphasis on border control, irregular migration reduction, and return policies.

Countries such as Austria, Denmark, Italy, Poland, and Slovakia exemplify this trend, remaining engaged in multilateral processes while prioritizing domestic control and political sustainability in migration policy.

A smaller group of states has adopted a more sovereignty-centered approach, emphasizing national authority over migration policy and expressing skepticism toward international frameworks perceived as constraining domestic decision-making.

The United States announced it would not endorse the final Progress Declaration, citing concerns related to sovereignty and national migration priorities, while reaffirming that migration policy should remain primarily a national competence.

Hungary similarly maintained its long-standing opposition to the Global Compact framework, emphasizing strict national control over migration governance.

These positions reflect an increasingly fragmented global landscape with three broad approaches:

• states strongly supportive of multilateral, rights-based migration governance
• a large pragmatic group balancing cooperation with stronger enforcement priorities
• a smaller group prioritizing national sovereignty and limiting engagement with global migration frameworks.

The non-binding nature of the Global Compact continues to enable broad participation but limits enforceability and accountability. As a result, the IMRF produces shared principles and guidance rather than binding commitments, leaving implementation uneven across regions.

Despite these challenges, migration remains deeply connected to global economic systems, including:

• labor markets,
• demographic planning,
• and increasing entrepreneurship and innovation.

Within this broader context, business and professional women migrants represent a growing but still under-recognized group whose contributions are central to global competitiveness and development. Their experiences highlight the gap between policy recognition of skills-based migration and the practical barriers that continue to limit mobility, opportunity, and economic advancement.

Nermin K. Ahmad
Chair Women on the Move
womenonthemove@nfbpwc.org