Mainstreaming the Business and Human Rights Agenda in Africa: Three key lessons for consideration

January 28, 2025
a person standing in front of a truck

African businesses and governments to leverage opportunities, including emerging technologies and The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) , to drive inclusive and sustainable economic growth, promote responsible business practices

AdobeStock

In recent years, African governments, national human rights institutions (NHRIs), civil society actors, and businesses have increased their focus on promoting business and human rights and responsible business conduct, including accountability frameworks.

The adoption has largely influenced this development in 2011 of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights on Business and Human Rights(link is external) (UNGPs), which has become the most authoritative guidance document on what states and businesses ought to do to protect and respect human rights in the business context. The UNGPs emphasise the State's duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including businesses and the corporate responsibility to respect human rights throughout the value chain. It also requires that both the State and businesses provide access to effective remedies for business-related human rights abuses.

Since 2020, UNDP has developed and implemented programmes and activities on business and human rights in Africa with relative success, working with key partners such as the African Union(link is external), the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, UNICEF, the Danish Institute for Human Rights, and Friedrich Ebert Stiftung(link is external). While these and other achievements have significantly advanced the BHR agenda, the sustainability of these efforts in the long run requires careful thought. Here are three key lessons for consideration.

Lesson 1: National action plans are only one tool in a large toolbox 
States must adopt and implement effective laws, regulations and policies as part of their duty to protect against human rights by businesses, including State-owned or controlled businesses (UNGPs, Principles 1-6). Among these laws and policies, national action plans on business and human rights(link is external) (NAPs) have been seen as the most important policy documents to disseminate, promote and implement the UNGPs. In 2023, 34 countries(link is external) had adopted NAPs worldwide, including three in Africa. These are Kenya (2021), Uganda (2021), Nigeria (2023). Earlier this year, Liberia joined the ranks, becoming the fourth African country to have adopted a NAP out of 54 countries. Progress is also being made on NAP development processes in countries such as Ghana(link is external)Ethiopia(link is external), Senegal, Malawi(link is external), Mozambique, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. 

These figures do not only speak to the low number or rate of adoption of NAPs on the continent. They would also suggest that a stronger business case can and must be made about the relevance and pertinence of NAPs, particularly in an increasingly more complex regional and international legal and regulatory BHR environment(link is external). This would require more information to be shared on how those NAPs that have already been adopted are used to regulate business activities and promote responsible business conduct in the concerned countries. It would also necessitate further discussions on the alignment between the NAPs – and the BHR agenda more generally – and existing laws, policies, agendas and frameworks such as the African Union Agenda 2063(link is external) and the African Free Trade Continental Area Agreement(link is external)

Above all else, it is important to acknowledge that NAPs may not be appropriate in or for all contexts and that they are not a panacea to all BHR challenges facing the continent. As one senior Ethiopian NHRI staff noted during the 3rdBusiness and Human Rights Forum(link is external):

It’s important that States adopt national action plans on business and rights, but we should not forget our role as NHRIs. National action plans on business and human rights are only one tool in the box we have on the table, and there are several means through which we can do our advocacy work on these issues.  

Indeed, there is increased recognition of the necessity to explore and leverage the “smart mix of measures(link is external)” available to protect human rights in the context of business activities. At UNDP, we certainly observe a new trend emerging of countries adopting a sectoral approach to mainstreaming the BHR agenda. This is the case of Madagascar, where UNDP is working with national authorities to elaborate and implement a responsible and sustainable mining program.  

Lesson 2: Trust the process
Whether a country opts to adopt a NAP or not usually depends on many factors, including entry points and NHRI and civil society advocacy. Regardless of the approach taken, however, it is evident that the process of mainstreaming the BHR agenda is not just long and costly but also extremely rewarding. This process involves extensive consultations, creating BHR steering committees, and the development of draft NAPs through dialogue with various stakeholders. Take the case of Senegal; since the government organised the regional BHR consultations as part of the NAP development process and with support from UNDP, the Ministry of Justice has reported an increase in the number of requests and complaints received from local communities. What is more, a decree suspending drilling operations of the mining company Industries Chimiques du Sénégal (ICS) was issued by the Subprefect of Méouane following consultations in the Western region of Thiès. 

In Ghana, the Government held extensive BHR consultations in all 16 regions of the country to develop its draft NAP, including with key vulnerable groups such as women, youth and children, and trade unions. In Malawi(link is external) and Ethiopia, national BHR steering committees have been created, including senior representatives from the ministries of Justice, Labour, Finance, Trade, chambers of commerce, academics, and the NHRIs. Even in Madagascar, where a NAP is not envisaged in the short term, preliminary discussions on the program on responsible and sustainable mining have led to strong engagement and attracted much interest from different government departments, mining companies, civil society, and parliament(link is external).  

These outcomes underscore the crucial role of meaningful consultations and advocacy spaces when mainstreaming the BHR agenda in Africa and beyond. They provide a platform for diverse voices to be heard and ensure that the BHR agenda is inclusive and reflective of the needs and concerns of all stakeholders. 

Lesson 3: Mind the gaps
Mainstreaming the BHR agenda offers unique opportunities for African States and businesses regarding access to ‘green’ or responsible financing, responsible sourcing, and new markets. At the same time, it creates uncertainties and presents various risks for African businesses and economies. Yet, our work reveals that the level of awareness and understanding of this agenda remains relatively low among some government officials, businesses, civil society and local communities, particularly when it comes to the corporate responsibility to respect human rights and access to remedy.  

In Ghana, one national BHR expert stated that “the level of knowledge and acceptance of BHR is a function of how international the company is, not of its size.” Elsewhere, the role or place of micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) in BHR was identified as a grey area. In Madagascar, for example, conversations on businesses’ responsibilities for human rights focused on the responsibilities of large mining companies, largely leaving aside the role and responsibilities of small-scale artisanal miners, who constitute a large portion of a sector that remains largely informal(link is external).  

The remedy gap is another grey area to be mindful of. Indeed, as illustrated in Tanzania(link is external), there are several challenges to access to remedy. These range from a general lack of awareness of available remedy mechanisms to a lack of financial means and procedural constraints imposed by certain judicial authorities. In fact, at a June workshop (link is external)organised with the African Development Bank and three civil society groups on access to remedy, a legal officer of the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights admitted that “the obstacle to individuals and NGOs bringing cases before the Court is serious and reflected in the statistics.”

The cases of Ghana, Madagascar and Tanzania, among many others, highlight the importance of continuous awareness raising on the BHR agenda, focusing on these and other important gaps. As a senior AUC official attending the 3rd Africa BHR Forum noted, “At the end of the day, what is necessary is for governments [and other stakeholders] to promote a holistic approach to BHR”. 

So, while the journey towards robust BHR frameworks in Africa may be gradual, it is crucial to maintain our focus on the ultimate goal. UNDP remains committed to supporting countries in mainstreaming the BHR agenda, learning from country experiences, adapting its methods and approaches to fit the different contexts in which it operates, leveraging new and existing opportunities, and working closely with national and international partners. 

The momentum has just picked up, and we are confident that the future holds immense promise for the BHR agenda in Africa.