Conflict-affected & high-risk contexts

Operating in or being connected to conflict-affected or high-risk areas requires businesses to approach risk identification and their subsequent actions differently, including the need to:

• Be aware of conflict dynamics and respect both human rights and stability, recognising that standard human rights and environmental due diligence is not sufficient in conflict-affected settings. Companies must apply enhanced, context-specific measures that address the complexities and volatility of these environments.

• Understand how business operations and value chains interact with conflict dynamics and fragility, including the potential to exacerbate or alleviate tensions. Businesses cannot assume neutrality; their presence, actions, and partnerships inevitably affect local power structures, perceptions, and outcomes on the ground. Companies should be aware of the potential for changes to downstream risks in these contexts.  

• Incorporate international humanitarian law considerations, particularly obligations to protect civilians and avoid contributing to hostilities or militarisation. This includes staying vigilant to the risk of becoming complicit in violations or inadvertently supporting armed actors.

• Engage deeply and responsibly with affected stakeholders, such as local communities, civil society, and humanitarian actors — or legitimate proxies when direct engagement poses safety risks. Stakeholder engagement must be designed with careful attention to identity-based risks, local power dynamics, and the principle of "do no harm."

• Monitor and respond to conflict ‘red flags’, such as rising violence, militarisation, hate speech, or attacks on civil society. These signals should trigger reassessment of risks and operational adjustments to avoid contributing to further instability or harm.

“Although particular country and local contexts may affect the human rights risks of an enterprise’s activities and business relationships, all business enterprises have the same responsibility to respect human rights wherever they operate. Where national context renders it impossible to meet this responsibility fully, business enterprises are expected to respect the principles of internationally recognised human rights to the greatest extent possible in the circumstances and to be able to demonstrate their efforts in this regard.” - UNGP 23 Commentary

The UN Guiding Principles emphasise:

• Business responsibility in all contexts: All businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights at all times and in all places, including in conflict-affected and high-risk areas. This duty applies even when the local state is unable or unwilling to meet its own human rights obligations.
• Heightened risk during conflict: In situations of armed conflict, the risk of gross human rights abuses, such as war crimes or crimes against humanity, increases. Under UNGP 23, companies must treat the risk of contributing to such abuses with the same seriousness as legal compliance.
• The role of the state: UNGP 7 calls on states to support businesses in meeting their responsibilities in conflict contexts, including through guidance, conditioning access to public support, and engaging in international cooperation to prevent corporate involvement in abuses.
• Expectations for heightened due diligence: Companies operating in conflict-affected or high-risk areas are expected to carry out heightened human rights due diligence, which includes conflict-sensitive analysis, stakeholder mapping, identifying and mitigating risks of complicity, and monitoring conflict dynamics over time.
• Consideration of international law: Businesses should take into account International Humanitarian Law (IHL), especially during active armed conflicts, alongside human rights law, ensuring their actions do not aid or abet violations under either legal framework.
• Access to remedy: The UNGPs emphasise the importance of remedy - companies should provide effective grievance mechanisms and cooperate with legitimate investigations or accountability efforts for harms caused.
• Responsible disengagement: Where serious human rights risks cannot be mitigated, companies should consider modifying, delaying, or exiting operations, and must do so with strategies that minimise harm to affected stakeholders.

For more on responsible disengagement, including in the context of mandatory measures, access our podcast below: 

In addition to the UNGPs, it is important to recognise bodies of law which impact how non-state actors are expected to act in conflict settings. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is an internationally recognised body of rules seeking to limit the effects of armed conflict, protecting people who are not or are no longer part of the hostilities associated with the conflict and restricting both the means and methods of warfare. Customary Law, as it relates to IHL, is comprised of rules founded on a general practice accepted as law. It is of particular importance in filling gaps in treaties and helps strengthen the protections offered to victims in conflict settings. It is important for practitioners to have a grasp of the basic concepts of IHL and Customary Law to help identify risks and significant red flags.

Occupation significantly heightens the risk of systemic human rights violations, including discrimination, displacement, and violence against the protected population. These conditions can undermine a wide range of civil, political, economic, and social rights. Businesses operating in such contexts face elevated risks of contributing to or benefiting from serious abuses, particularly where their activities are linked to settlement construction, land appropriation, or resource exploitation.
 
Operating in occupied territories is both a human rights concern and a legal compliance issue. Businesses should avoid supporting or legitimising the occupying power’s unlawful actions and are required to conduct heightened human rights due diligence, in line with the UNGPs. Where adverse impacts cannot be prevented or mitigated, companies are expected to cease operations that facilitate or sustain the occupation or its infrastructure.
 

International Criminal Law (ICL) establishes individual responsibility for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. While international courts such as the ICC prosecute individuals rather than companies, corporate executives, managers or intermediaries can face investigation and prosecution in domestic courts under universal or extraterritorial jurisdiction.

For business actors, possibly the most relevant form of liability is complicity, where practical assistance, financing, products or services have a substantial effect on international crimes, and the individual knew or was wilfully blind to that risk. Other modes include ordering or inducing crimes, co-perpetration through joint plans, and command responsibility for failures to prevent or punish abuses by controlled security forces.

Companies operating in conflict-affected or high-risk areas should assess whether their activities could foreseeably contribute to crimes under ICL, especially where products, logistics or services may enable detention, targeting, displacement or other abuses. Awareness of credible risks, coupled with continued support, may expose individuals to criminal liability. Heightened human rights due diligence, clear escalation and disengagement procedures are critical safeguards.

For more, download our issue briefing "Blind spot in the boardroom: Why companies ignore international criminal law and why they shouldn't" by GBI Senior Advisor Gerald Pachoud.