A healthy environment: A human right, or wrong?

A ‘Just Transition’ means putting the interests of people at the front and centre of the action on decarbonisation needed to reach Net-Zero and to ensure the planet is a liveable place for everyone. Both the themes of human rights and climate justice are integrated within our report last year on Just Transition. Climate justice acknowledges that climate change has differing social, economic, and public health impacts on individuals and communities. Human rights due diligence is an ongoing process that identifies, mitigates, and remediates human rights risks while effectively engaging potentially impacted communities and stakeholders.

Despite the increasing focus on human rights and the due diligence businesses must exercise throughout their supply chains, one critical right often overlooked is the right to a healthy environment. This right is pivotal, yet sits in a grey area between civil, political, cultural, social, and economic rights, sparking debate about whether a healthy environment is an inherent human entitlement. The right to a healthy environment includes both substantive rights, such as the right to clean air, safe water, and a healthy ecosystem, and procedural rights, like access to information, participation in decision-making, and access to justice.

The concept of the human right to a healthy environment is longstanding, tracing back to foundational human rights documents like the Magna Carta of 1215. Despite its historical roots and its significant influence on global human rights frameworks, this right remains elusive in practical terms.

In a landmark resolution by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2021, access to a healthy and sustainable environment was recognised as a universal right. So far, 161 nations have granted something in line with an “enforceable” right to a healthy environment, although so-called “progressive” countries like the USA and UK have failed to adopt such measures. This comes after a heavy increase in environmental campaigners using the law to encourage countries to address environmental issues like climate change.

The Aarhus Convention, ratified by the EU in 2001, is touted as the most comprehensive and admirable of all these acts. It guarantees every person’s right to live in a healthy environment through three key rights: access to information, public participation, and access to justice, focussing mainly on the procedural rights associated with the environment. However, its focus on procedural rights without enforceable measures limits its effectiveness. Signing such landmark conventions is crucial for securing justice, but without enforceable actions, the human right to a healthy environment remainslargely theoretical. Moreover, the convention's lack of emphasis on substantive rights underscores the heart of the issue.

In place of a clear human right to a clean and healthy environment, campaigners have turned instead to the foundations of human rights. Under the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 3 (right to life), and Article 12 (no arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence) have been used to illustrate how a lack of climate action is in violation of our fundamental human rights.

In a landmark ruling in April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others in their case against Switzerland. The group of senior women alleged that the State was not doing enough to combat climate change, and the resulting life-threatening heatwaves were violating the right to life and the right to private and family life.

However, it is not just governments who run the risk of litigious action. In 2021, plaintiffs in the Netherlands relied on violations of Articles 3 and 14 in their successful class action suit against Shell Group, where the Court found that Shell indeed violated a duty of care and human rights obligations by failing to take adequate action to combat climate change.

For a truly Just Transition and sustainable future, the ratification of an enforceable, universal right to a healthy environment is imperative. This would compel countries and companies alike to adopt practices that ensure a sustainable future for all, aligning business operations with the global need for environmental stewardship and human rights protection. This universal right is a powerful catalyst for driving a Just Transition, ensuring that every step towards sustainability prioritises human and environmental well-being.

Whilst the issue of the right to a clean environment remains to be clearly answered, and the current filings against companies remain few, it is important that businesses do not bury their heads in the sand on this matter. While the Paris Agreement on climate change is a legally binding international treaty between governments, its primary impact on business is through being a clear call to action, with many citing it when setting climate-related targets. It is only a matter of time before the human rights issues related to climate and the environment, and how businesses are heavily contributing to their collective degradation, will become a hot issue to be contested.

Climate change is now no longer an issue to be debated, but an action to be taken. These rulings only highlight the urgency and desperation of the everyday people to combat climate change and the creativity with which they are looking to hold businesses and institutions accountable. The only way to avoid these potential lawsuits is to take clear, ambitious and actionable steps to reduce carbon emissions, prevent biodiversity loss and help create a world where violations of a healthy and clean environment are an issue of the past.