Risky Business: More Guidance Needed for Companies in Conflict Zones
May 18, 2026
Last month, a French court convicted and sentenced the CEO of construction giant Lafarge and seven other executives for financing terrorism: they had arranged for payments of approximately USD 6.5 million to ISIS and the al-Nusrah Front to keep their cement factory in northern Syria operational. These payments not only prevented the terrorist groups from interfering with the plant’s operations, kidnapping employees, and harassing customers, but also incentivized the terrorist groups to disrupt the imports of a competitor. In June 2024, a federal court in Florida found Chiquita Brands liable for killings by a Colombian paramilitary group to whom the company gave millions of dollars to protect its banana-growing operations in areas affected by the Colombian civil war. The company was ordered to pay USD 38.3 million. While the case is currently on appeal, these cases demonstrate that operating in conflict zones or conflict-affected areas is indeed risky business.
The world faces increasingly frequent, complex, and far-reaching armed conflict—the Uppsala Conflict Data Program’s 2024 data recorded the highest level of active conflicts since 1946, while the overall level of conflict has roughly doubled over the last five years. In this environment, businesses must grapple with how to work responsibly in conflict zones and how to manage supply chains that pass through volatile areas. Doing so requires the creation of industry-specific standards that account for obligations under multiple bodies of law—obligations whose interactions remain unclear.
In response to a request for public input from the UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights and Steptoe LLP submitted a comment asking the Committee to provide guidance clarifying the specific contours of corporate responsibility under the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in conflict zones. Such guidance will help businesses, communities, and governments understand the nature of corporate responsibility in these challenging settings. That guidance can also inform the development of industry-specific standards to measure compliance. Without this guidance, businesses retain too much discretion and are forced to operate without knowing whether they may face liability for their decisions.
International humanitarian law (IHL), which prohibits war crimes, applies during armed conflict and can apply directly to individuals and businesses. A business or its executives can violate IHL directly when their acts, including supplying goods or services to a party to the conflict, serve the ultimate goal of a military campaign and the campaign involves war crimes.
While international human rights law has traditionally focused on states, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights articulates a soft law obligation for businesses to respect human rights by identifying and addressing adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved. These obligations, and the underlying human rights, apply regardless of whether a conflict is underway. While governments can impose limits on certain rights during a conflict, economic, social, and cultural rights—including rights to the highest attainable standard of health and an adequate standard of living—cannot be legally abrogated in times of conflict unless a government can prove the limitation serves the general welfare.
Notwithstanding these enshrined protections, conflict zones and other high risk areas typically involve rampant rights violations as governments are less able or willing to enforce fundamental human and labor rights. Conflict zones therefore present distinct challenges for responsible business. Because of this, businesses operating in conflict zones are expected to conduct heightened human rights due diligence (hHRDD), going beyond identifying their own adverse impacts to also consider risks under IHL and the potential for their operations to affect the conflict itself. The UN Development Program recently issued a practical guide on hHRDD in conflict zones, but it stops short of explaining how international human rights law and IHL should be balanced against each other. The gap is precisely what makes clearer guidance from the Committee so important.
Examples illustrate the complexity of business decision-making in conflict zones.
Consider a private water-utility company that services local communities. If the government fails to pay the water company, perhaps because it is prioritizing military spending in an armed conflict, does the company bear any human rights obligations beyond its contract to continue providing water? If the company faces persistent service gaps, security risks, and quality shortfalls because of the conflict, how should the company think about its obligations, and how much discretion does the company retain to stop providing water to civilians?
Consider a global logistics company operating in a territory subject to armed conflict, where military authorities have imposed movement restrictions and checkpoints. Under international humanitarian law, the restrictions may be legal, but the checkpoints may also have significant negative consequences on civilians’ enjoyment of human rights. To what extent is a company in this situation responsible for the adverse impacts that result from the checkpoints?
Consider a mining company operating in a conflict zone. The company may be providing crucial jobs to the community, which means the company’s wages may be key to locals accessing sanitation, healthcare, and education. But the economic benefits may also flow disproportionately to one group and thus help sustain the conflict. Or consider a technology company providing data-storage and communication services in a conflict zone. These services may be crucial to accessing education, healthcare, and cultural life, but could also help sustain the conflict. It could be impossible for such a company to restrict access for combatants without restricting access for civilians. How should these companies balance the risk that their operations may exacerbate a conflict with the reality that their services are central to individuals exercising human rights?
Facing these and other challenges, we at the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights believe businesses must have sector-specific standards, based on international human rights, labor rights, and humanitarian law, that can guide their decision-making and provide a basis on which to evaluate their behavior. Developing these standards requires a nuanced understanding of the relevant bodies of law—IHL, international human rights law, and labor law—and how they relate to each other. Guidance from the Committee can help clarify these areas of overlap and conflict, so that standards can be more precise, and businesses are not left guessing.
Global LaborRelated
See all
