In conflict-affected contexts, often with fragile governance, weak rule of law, and institutional instability, businesses – whether complicit or proactive actors – play a pivotal role in either exacerbating or mitigating harm. History shows that opportunistic businesses have exploited armed conflicts, resulting not only in the destruction of the lives of millions of people, but also in significant harm to the environment that will last for generations.

Conflicts in Colombia and Congo were among the first to be linked to corporate resource extraction. A similar case is the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine, allegedly driven, in part, by its rich natural resources, including lithium, titanium and rare earth minerals. For instance, it was claimed that production at the “Crimean Titan” plant under Russian Hydrogen management in Russian-occupied Armyansk violates laws and customs of war related to environmental protection. Another example of the exploitation of natural resources can be found in the case of Israel’s activities in Palestinian and other Arab territories. Such actions led the UN General Assembly to condemn them as illegal and demand an immediate end to them.

The interplay of business activities, conflict dynamics and environmental degradation poses risks to ecosystems and local populations. However, this issue has received little attention at both national and international levels.

So, do companies have environmental obligations and if so, what are the consequences they face for causing harm to the environment?

International framework of environmental protection in armed conflicts

The protection of the environment during armed conflicts is a growing concern in international law. International Human Rights Law (IHRL) and International Environmental Law (IEL) along with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) together establish an international framework of environmental protection in armed conflicts.

IHRL applies in both peacetime and conflict, and recognises a clean and healthy environment as essential to human rights and well-being in various international acts, among which are:

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (article 12) emphasises environmental protection as fundamental to human health;
• UNGA Resolution 76/300 establishes international standards linking environmental protection to human rights;
• UNGA Resolution 47/37 requires states to ensure compliance with existing international law protecting the environment during armed conflicts;
• UN Environment Programme resolution 2/15 recognises the role of healthy ecosystems and sustainable resource management in preventing conflicts.

The IEL strengthens environmental protections during armed conflicts:

• ENMOD Convention prohibits using the environment as a weapon of war;
• Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (Principle 24) calls on states to uphold environmental safeguards during conflicts;
• ILC Draft Principles on Environmental Protection in Armed Conflict emphasise preventing, mitigating, and remediating war-related environmental damage.

The Geneva Conventions provide two types of environmental protection in armed conflicts:

• Special protection: prohibits warfare tactics that cause widespread environmental harm;
• General protection: safeguards the environment as a part of civilian objects.

The accountability gap: corporate harm to the environment during armed conflicts

Businesses can contribute to environmental harm directly by exacerbating pre-existing environmental or climate-related problems and indirectly by, for example, engaging in deforestation and mining in the territory of a conflict, providing advice and/or services to a party of an armed conflict on power station construction, or sharing scientific knowledge on how to develop weapons that cause environmental harm.

According to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), business entities should respect both IHRL and IHL. Principle 7 urges companies to conduct heightened human rights due diligence (hHRDD) in conflict-affected areas (CAAs). The third revised draft of the international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises also refers to IHL as an interpretative framework of human rights obligations of states and businesses. Similarly, ILC draft principles on protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts highlight businesses’ responsibility to respect the environment, calling on states to ensure that enterprises exercise due diligence with respect to the protection of the environment when acting in an area affected by an armed conflict (Principle 10).

Despite the severity of these issues, the current international legal framework has notable accountability gaps as it relies on soft law such as the UNGPs and OECD guidelines. As discussed above, companies operating in conflict-affected settings are urged to conduct hHRDD. However, most companies have shown lack of hHRDD implementation in their activities and show even a basic lack of knowledge of what they should do in conflict-affected areas. This highlights an urgent need for mandatory due diligence laws that would oblige companies to identify, prevent and address human rights and environmental risks both in their operations and supply chains, ensuring enforceable responsibility for their misconduct.

There have been some advances in addressing corporate accountability for environmental and human rights abuses in armed conflicts. These include the Malabo Protocol, which grants the African Court of Justice and Human Rights jurisdiction over legal persons for international crimes, including environmental crimes, though it has not yet entered into force; and the ILC draft articles on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity, which recognise corporate liability. However, such achievements at international level have not been sufficient to bring companies responsible for environmental violations to justice.

National courts have increasingly acted against companies involved in environmental harms during armed conflicts, with cases brought against Swiss Argor-Heraeus for pillaging natural resources from the DRC, Swedish Lundin Oil for complicity in war crimes in Sudan, Apple for complicity in conflict minerals trade in the DRC, and Shell for human rights and environmental violations in Nigeria.

This shows that companies must take proactive steps (that is, conduct hHRDD) to prevent human rights and environmental violations, not just react when such violations occur. This includes consideration of any types of environmental impacts, direct, indirect, actual and potential, that they may have in a CAA, including impacts of their subsidiaries and other entities in their supply chain. Nowadays, various tools are available for companies to guarantee their compliance with environmental responsibilities in a CAA, and so that they cannot claim ignorance on the topic.

Respect for human rights and environment must be a core operational principle and not a box-checking exercise. Businesses operating in conflict-affected areas have a choice: uphold international standards, respect human rights and environment or face escalating global scrutiny and legal repercussions.

The time for decisive corporate action is now.