Conducting Business without Human Rights Violation Complicity

It is one of the cold realities of the modern world that companies do business in states and regions where human rights violations take place. As the world has globalised with increasing speed, companies have sought resources and have been forced to conduct operations in regions further and further removed from stability and the rule of law.

This new reality of global business has brought with it new challenges. Corruption, poverty and security have become issues for businesses that once restricted their expertise to production and distribution efficiencies.

Businesses are under increasing pressure to contribute to development and, at the very least, do no harm in the countries where they do business. This pressure is coupled with repeated calls for companies to suspend their operations in certain countries, or to take a stand on the human rights conditions in their local operating context.

No country on Earth has a completely clean record on human rights. Every society contains poor practises and entrenched human rights challenges. How can companies draw the line between imperfect yet allowable human rights environments and ‘no go’ countries where local conditions make respecting human rights impossible?

Complicity and Business Decisions

Businesses must assess the balance between risk and opportunity. Through Business Intelligence and Due Diligence processes companies can begin to establish if there is the risk for future allegations of corporate complicity in state perpetrated human rights violations.

Undoubtedly businesses can have a very positive effect in their area of operations. Through adherence to international human rights standards foreign businesses can spread the concept of rights and raise demands for good practice in states where human rights efforts may be to some extent prohibited.

Human Rights Considerations

Prior to investment companies must look at human rights risks in conjunction with their operations on a number of levels. From a broader perspective, consideration needs to be given as to whether their conduct of operations may in-directly legitimise an abusive regime.

In more detail consideration needs to be given to the company’s actual link to potential human rights abuses. From a weak connection where there presence really has no effect, an in-direct connection where they may unknowingly contribute right through to a direct link (an example of this would be providing support for state security forces who commit atrocities).

The bottom line is that companies cannot change regimes. They can however explain their policies and operations in oppressive states, and ensure that they respect human rights without exception. In many countries, poor human rights practices have more to do with the activities of rebel groups and associated corruption than the government itself.

A transparency approach also has other in-direct benefits, in terms of project security, potential company profitability and defence against legal claims.

In Conclusion

Simply discouraging businesses from operating in such complex situations is temptingly straightforward, but total exclusion is not the best solution, and risks squandering the potential beneficial effects of private-sector operations in states where human rights are not fulfilled.

Caution is the order of the day particularly if the government borders on being oppressive and the population lacks the protection of the rule of law. The company that operates with this caution acts as a responsible representative of its own society, acts in the best interests of the local population and gives itself the best chance of maximising genuine commercial opportunities.