EarthRights International puts corporate abuse in extractive industries under scrutiny
- Editorial Team SDG16
- 8 hours ago
- 5 min read
Published on 2 July 2026 at 03:34 GMT
By Editorial Team SDG16
EarthRights International works at the difficult intersection where environmental damage, corporate power and community rights meet. Its work matters now because the global demand for minerals, energy and infrastructure is rising while many communities living near extractive industries still face pollution, displacement, intimidation and weak access to justice.
The organisation’s central argument is that human rights and environmental rights cannot be separated. When a river is contaminated, a forest is cleared or land is taken without meaningful consent, the impact is not only ecological. It can affect health, livelihoods, food security, culture, safety and the ability of communities to participate in decisions that shape their future.
This makes corporate accountability a public-interest issue rather than a narrow legal concern. Mining, oil and gas projects often involve complex chains of responsibility, including multinational companies, subsidiaries, contractors, financiers and state authorities. When harm occurs, affected residents may struggle to identify who is legally responsible, where a case can be brought, and how evidence can be protected.
EarthRights International combines litigation, training and advocacy to address that gap. Its model reflects a wider shift in civil society work: legal action alone is rarely enough, but community mobilisation without legal tools can also leave people exposed. The organisation therefore supports cases, trains community leaders and lawyers, and works with partners to challenge systems that allow environmental abuse to continue with limited consequences.
The issue is especially relevant to SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions), because access to remedy is central to the rule of law. It also connects to SDG 13 (climate action), SDG 15 (life on land), SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation) and SDG 10 (reduced inequalities), depending on the case. These links matter because environmental harm is often distributed unequally, with poorer, rural and Indigenous communities bearing the risks while others capture the economic benefits.
One of the main barriers is jurisdiction. A company may be headquartered in one country, operate through a subsidiary in another, raise finance in a third and cause harm in a remote region where courts are under-resourced or politically constrained. This structure can make environmental justice slow, expensive and uncertain. It can also discourage communities from pursuing claims, particularly where activists face threats, surveillance or criminalisation.
Civil society organisations have documented a growing concern over reprisals against environmental and land defenders. Global Witness, Front Line Defenders and the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre have all drawn attention to attacks, legal harassment and intimidation affecting people who oppose harmful projects or demand consultation. Their work helps show that environmental protection is not only about conservation policy, but also about civic space.
For EarthRights International, training is part of that civic infrastructure. The organisation’s legal and community education programmes aim to strengthen local capacity so that affected people can understand rights, document harms and engage more effectively with authorities, courts and companies. This approach recognises that communities are not passive victims. They are often the first monitors of environmental damage and the first to raise concerns when formal systems fail.
The politics of extraction are becoming more complicated. The transition away from fossil fuels requires large quantities of minerals for batteries, grids and renewable energy technologies. That creates a risk that the language of climate action may be used to justify new forms of land pressure and weak consultation. A transition that reduces carbon emissions but reproduces local harm cannot easily be described as just.
This is where just transition debates become practical. Communities affected by mining or energy projects often ask basic questions: who decides whether a project goes ahead, who carries the risk, who receives the benefits, and what happens when damage is done. Stronger rules on due diligence, transparency and remedy are intended to answer those questions before conflict escalates.
International policy has moved in that direction, though unevenly. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights established a widely used framework built around the state duty to protect, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, and access to remedy. However, implementation remains inconsistent, especially where governments depend heavily on extractive revenues or lack the capacity to regulate powerful investors.
The debate over mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence reflects that frustration. Supporters argue that voluntary corporate commitments have not been enough to prevent abuse or provide remedy. Critics warn that poorly designed rules could become box-ticking exercises. The practical question is whether new laws can shift behaviour before harm occurs, rather than simply creating reports after communities have already been affected.
EarthRights International sits within this accountability ecosystem. Its work does not replace government regulation, independent courts or strong environmental agencies. Instead, it exposes what happens when those systems are weak, captured or inaccessible. By combining legal advocacy, community training and public campaigning, it helps keep attention on the people most affected by corporate and state decisions.
There are limits to this model. Transnational litigation can take years. Evidence may be hard to obtain. Companies may contest jurisdiction or argue that responsibility lies with local partners or state authorities. Even successful cases may not fully repair damaged ecosystems or restore lost livelihoods. For communities facing immediate harm, justice delayed can feel distant from daily survival.
Yet these efforts can still change incentives. A credible threat of litigation, public scrutiny or investor concern can influence corporate behaviour. Training programmes can strengthen local leadership beyond a single dispute. Public advocacy can make it harder for governments and companies to dismiss community concerns as isolated complaints.
The broader lesson is that environmental human rights are becoming central to sustainability. Climate targets, biodiversity pledges and development plans will have limited legitimacy if they ignore the rights of people living closest to extraction, pollution and land-use change. Public-interest journalism has a role in making those connections visible, especially when affected communities are far from political and financial centres.
The work of EarthRights International shows why accountability remains essential in the sustainability agenda. The question is not whether societies need energy, minerals or infrastructure. The question is whether those needs can be met without treating some communities as acceptable costs. For many affected people, the answer depends on whether rights are enforceable, evidence is heard, and powerful actors can be held to account.
Further information:
* EarthRights International, the organisation combines law, community training and advocacy to defend human rights and the environment in cases involving corporate and state abuse. https://earthrights.org
* EarthRights International corporate accountability programme, this source explains the organisation’s work to hold corporations accountable for human rights and environmental harms. https://earthrights.org/what-we-do/corporate-accountability/
* EarthRights International extractive industries programme, this source is relevant to communities affected by oil, gas and mining projects. https://earthrights.org/what-we-do/extractive-industries/
* Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, this civil society organisation tracks corporate human rights impacts and provides information on business accountability. https://www.business-humanrights.org
* Global Witness, this organisation documents threats to land and environmental defenders and investigates the links between natural resources, power and abuse. https://www.globalwitness.org
