9 October 2025 - Lindsay Hooper, CEO at CISL, writes that today’s crises – from Gaza to AI governance – expose a deeper question: will shared rules and rights endure, or be eroded by raw power? She argues that businesses cannot stay passive, since their long-term interests depend on markets grounded in human rights and the rule of law, and true sustainability leadership requires defending both environmental and social foundations.
Many of today’s tensions – from Gaza to AI governance to geo-economics – reflect a deeper struggle: not just over which rules should prevail, and who should be bound by them, but whether any rules or rights will be upheld at all. Some actors seek to replace shared norms – and the laws that underpin them – with raw power and control. While the existing international order has often reflected Western dominance and been applied unevenly, the more immediate threat may be the erosion of rules altogether.
It is difficult for businesses to engage constructively in highly politicised conflicts, but it is necessary and firmly in their interests to respect, protect and actively defend human rights and the rule of law. This includes interrogating business relationships, investments and supply chains that may contribute, directly or indirectly, to serious human rights violations.
Thriving markets rely on stable, rights-respecting societies, where rule of law underpins trust, investment and economic resilience. Yet many companies claiming sustainability credentials focus narrowly on climate goals, treating environmental action as a proxy for doing good – and, by extension, “being good”.
But climate and nature action isn’t about “saving the planet”, it is about protecting communities and markets from escalating risks. There is a fundamental contradiction in claiming sustainability leadership while tolerating, or enabling, the destruction of communities.
If businesses are to be credible in their sustainability commitments, they must reflect respect for planetary boundaries and a consistent commitment to human rights and the institutions that uphold them. A resilient future depends on strong, accountable governance grounded in the rule of law, proactive due diligence, transparency and a willingness to act.
In the case of Gaza, while the political context is complex and interpretations of the law are disputed, the scale of civilian harm and the gravity of legal allegations are clear. Thousands of civilians have been killed, and civic infrastructure has been systematically destroyed. Leading legal bodies, including the International Court of Justice, have raised the alarm over serious breaches of international law.
A number of businesses have been named by U.N. special rapporteur Francesca Albanese in her recent report on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, and warned that they may be “embedded in an economy of genocide”.
It is particularly difficult for businesses to navigate a context where the very facts on the ground are contested, and governments are taking inconsistent and conflicting positions of international law. But that does not mean that business can just ignore the issues.
Businesses have a responsibility to review whether the goods, services or financing that they provide are contributing to violations of international law or the denial of basic rights to civilians – and to take action accordingly.
Complacency in the face of such breaches is not only a moral failure, but a strategic one.
When companies tolerate or enable violations in one context, they help normalise the erosion of legal protections everywhere. And when, even worse, companies seek to exploit conflict and human suffering for commercial gain, the governance foundations and shared norms that hold a society together will risk unravelling for everyone.
Many board members and senior executives I speak to privately express deep concern about the rise of authoritarianism and the erosion of the norms and institutions they have long assumed would hold. But there is often a sense of paralysis. Even when leaders believe that action is needed and justified, they worry that taking a stand will expose them commercially and politically, particularly if competitors exploit the moment.
When the law firm Paul Weiss came under political pressure for supporting legal challenges to the U.S. administration, rival firms saw an opening to recruit its partners. Such moments contribute to a wider hesitation – a fear that, without coordinated action, attempts to uphold institutional norms will be quickly undermined.
This dynamic reflects a collective action problem, familiar from game theory: a fear that early movers will be penalised while others benefit. But it also underestimates both the strength of public and investor support for responsible conduct, and the influence that business leaders retain in shaping expectations and behaviour within their markets. Competitive markets are not fixed systems. They are shaped by choices, norms and relationships – including those forged through industry coalitions, long-term partnerships and client pressure.
There is precedent. On issues such as corruption, child labour and conflict minerals, some businesses stepped up and drove progress – not because there was a short-term commercial upside, but because they recognised a shared, long-term interest in protecting the societies and markets they depend on.
Coordinated action helped build trust, strengthen accountability, and bring market stability. Investors and business leaders should now take the same approach to reassert guardrails around law, rights, and business responsibility – not only through statements, but through operational choices, risk screening, and collective commitments.
If business leaders want to preserve the rights and freedoms that underpin today’s economies, they need to act now to defend them – not wait until the erosion reaches their own doorstep, by which time the institutions needed to respond may already be too weakened to act.
