Companies operating in emerging economies are often faced with significant security challenges. Such challenges regularly arise in countries where the security forces, paramilitaries, and private security companies have a history of committing human rights violations. This may be because the country is or has been embroiled in armed conflict,  the security forces are corrupt and ill-disciplined, or there are significant governance gaps. Companies have a clear interest in protecting its employees and assets while maintaining respect for human rights. However, there is a risk that companies that employ, co-operate with, or benefit from the protection of state security forces may be associated with or benefit from human rights violations. Private security companies are sometimes hired to supplement or fulfil security needs in environments where state resources are lacking or weak, but their actions are often unregulated. In cases where security is supplemented in this way, companies may contribute to or reimburse the cost of such provisions. Whilst this security is expected to be consistent with national laws, international human rights standards and humanitarian law, human rights violations may occur during the protection of company property and personnel. There are numerous examples of companies being held legally accountable for the actions of state or private security forces, whether employed directly by the company or not.

The following examples were identified through background research:

• In May 2009, a federal judge in New York, US A, cleared one of the final obstacles for a trial to proceed against Royal Dutch Shell. The trial will investigate allegations that Shell was complicit in the summary execution, crimes against humanity and arbitrary arrest of activists from the Ogoni people opposing the oil industry in the 1990s. It is alleged that Shell helped to fund and equip the Nigerian security forces who carried out the violations. However, lawyers representing Shell contend that plaintiffs have not been able to prove that individuals within the company had knowledge of the allegations. 
• In January 2009, a woman was beaten by private security guards and her house was destroyed, in Lomas del Poleo, northwest of Ciudad Juarez in Mexico. The ownership of land in Lomas del Poleo is disputed by armed private security guards who claim that the land is private property. Threats and harassment have forced many residents to leave the area. The land has recently acquired increased value due to planned development nearby by a group of businessmen.

How does a company balance its legitimate security needs with its responsibility to respect human rights when it is obliged to use local security forces that have a history of committing widespread human rights violations?

The following have been identified as possible components of this dilemma:

• Alleged complicity in violations by private or public security forces
• History of widespread human rights violations that are often unpunished
• Security forces lack adequate training
• Security forces are under-paid
• Security forces engage in corruption
• Private security forces are weakly regulated
• Inadequate risk assessments
• Inadequate communication of company policy
• Inadequate monitoring or consultation