When it comes to the apparent disregard for human rights and norms from nation states, both China and Saudi Arabia often spring to mind. But, currently, it is perhaps Russia that stands out as the preeminent oppressive, aggressive and autocratic state on the global map.

China in particular has shown no interest in protecting the human rights of its citizens, more possibly viewing these rights as an existential threat. China’s government has repeatedly tried to strip Muslims of their culture, religion, and independent political viewpoints.

Saudi Arabia is continuing to suppress human rights through limiting freedom of expression, abusive power in the criminal justice system and the unrelenting oppression of women's rights.

Russia’s unjustified attack on Ukraine was supported by many of Russia’s oligarchs, in which trading within oppressive regimes played a crucial role in funding the war. The indirect support of an organisation's economic routines can help oppressive regimes prolong their efforts.

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights “apply to all States and to all business enterprises, both transnational and others, regardless of their size, sector, location, ownership and structure.” These principles establish that all businesses have an explicit role in the realisation of human rights. They have a responsibility to respect them and to take steps to avoid infringing the rights of others, and to address any adverse human rights impacts which result from their corporate activity.

Foreign investment and business play a key role in helping developing countries to reduce poverty and build their economy. But business can also have the opposite effect of perpetuating political repression by helping to sustain and fund governments that oppress their own people.

Organisations have a responsibility in choosing to be in opposition to oppressive regimes, many of which aim to secure silence in its oppression. Growing demands of accountability should inspire businesses to be socially responsible by resisting trade with oppressive states and their business enterprises. Currently, local television authorities in France are beginning to implement various measures by limiting football broadcasting, concerning association with current developing issues in Qatar, in respect of unjustified human right violations.

A company that undertakes any business with a military or other coercive regime runs the risk of contributing directly or indirectly to human rights violations. Even when business activities and operations do not, in themselves, play a role in such abuses, a company may risk significant damage to its own reputation through association with such a regime.

Deciding whether to trade or not to trade in association with oppressive regimes will ultimately decide the level of resistance within levels of society and business. And, as such, businesses in other parts of the world may choose to act to encourage and attempt to aid unprejudiced human right norms, particularly in countries who violate international law today. Or they may choose not to.