Why Your Business Can't Afford to Ignore Human Rights
It is time to discard the myth that business and human rights don’t mix. In today’s regulatory, social, and investment climate, companies face unprecedented scrutiny. Embedding human rights standards into operations is no longer optional; it is essential for managing risk, securing sustainable growth, and doing what is right. Firms that ignore this expose themselves not only to reputational damage but also to legal and financial consequences, risking their social licence to operate and long-term viability.
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) provide a clear framework for action. These principles rest on three pillars: states must protect human rights, businesses must respect them, and victims must have access to an effective remedy when things go wrong. They are no longer abstract ethical guidelines; they are central to modern business operations. With the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) coming into force and other governments reviewing responsible business rules, the message is clear: delay is a risk companies can no longer afford.
Respecting human rights requires concrete, proactive measures. It begins with top-level leadership commitment, reflected in a board-approved and publicly communicated human rights policy. This policy must be operationalised through a robust human-rights due diligence process. First, companies must identify and assess where their operations or supply chains could negatively impact people, ranging from labour rights in factories to community land rights in infrastructure projects, or worker security in extractive sites. Second, businesses must act and integrate their findings by updating contracts, standard operating procedures, and staff training. Finally, they must track and remediate, establishing confidential grievance mechanisms and ensuring effective, fair resolution.
Practical examples illustrate the universality of this approach. In the mining sector, respecting human rights can mean conducting proper community consultations and protecting land rights while managing tailings and other environmental risks. In the garment industry it involves auditing working conditions, ensuring living wages, and enabling worker voice and remedies. In the conservation and environmental sector, anti-poaching initiatives or land restoration projects must be designed with, and accountable to, local communities to prevent human rights violations. When mismanaged, projects intended as corporate social responsibility initiatives can escalate into public scandals, costly litigation, and operational delays.
The legal landscape reinforces these obligations. Beyond the UNGPs, companies must navigate international treaties, regional regulations, and domestic laws. Treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protect freedoms such as assembly, while the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights upholds the right to a decent standard of living. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples mandates Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) for projects affecting traditional lands. In the European context, the CSDDD imposes binding obligations on large companies to identify, prevent, and remediate human rights and environmental impacts across global supply chains.
For companies operating in Zambia, domestic law reinforces these duties. The Environmental Management Act No. 12 of 2011 enshrines the right to a clean, safe, and healthy environment and provides that affected persons may take legal action if these rights are violated. It establishes principles such as polluter pays, precautionary action, and equitable access to environmental resources. Additionally, the Constitution of Zambia embeds environmental stewardship in Article 256, requiring citizens and entities to respect, protect, and safeguard the environment. Companies investing in Zambia, or sourcing from Zambian suppliers, cannot treat human rights and environmental risks as optional; they are legally embedded, and failure to comply carries regulatory, operational, and reputational consequences.
Integrating human rights into business operations is not only a legal or ethical imperative, it is good business. Companies that embed human rights standards reduce their exposure to lawsuits, community protests, labour disputes, and operational delays. A strong human rights record protects reputation, builds trust with investors, consumers, and communities, and increasingly provides a competitive advantage. The United Nations Human Rights Office has highlighted robust human rights practices as a key factor in attracting investment. Operational measures such as training security personnel in de-escalation, establishing independent grievance mechanisms, ensuring fair community benefit sharing, and embedding human rights key performance indicators into contracts and governance structures prevent disputes and strengthen stakeholder relationships.
The era of voluntary guidelines is over. Companies that thrive will be those that view human rights compliance not as a burden but as an opportunity to build resilience and long-term value. Boards and executives should begin by developing or refreshing human rights policies, initiating comprehensive due diligence across operations and supply chains, embedding findings into contracts and standard procedures, establishing grievance-handling mechanisms, and monitoring outcomes through robust reporting. In Zambia, this also involves reviewing operations and supplier relationships in light of the Environmental Management Act and constitutional provisions on environmental stewardship, ensuring that community rights are respected and potential regulatory exposures across labour, environment, and human rights are addressed holistically.
Incorporating human rights into corporate strategy is not about charity; it is about embedding resilience, trust, and long-term value into business.
