We must tackle the climate and inequality crises together by grounding action in human rights

C limate change and climate action do not affect everyone equally. Since the United Nations launched the Race to Net Zero campaign in 2020, some governments and businesses have committed to reducing emissions, driving investment into the development of cleaner practices and technologies and improving resilience to extreme weather events.

Policies, such as the introduction of subsidies for residential solar panel installations, affect homeowners differently to those renting or experiencing homelessness, who are already more vulnerable to extreme weather and disasters. 

If communities feel left behind, they will push back on climate policies – as seen in France where the gilets jaunes protests were initially triggered by increasing fuel prices, in Germany where requirements for mandatory heat pumps were watered down following protests, and in the United States where a proposed move away from gas stoves also faced opposition. 

Such resistance could lead to delays or reversals of climate commitments, as recently seen in the UK where the government has chosen to put off the phasing out of fossil fuels and to scrap the requirement on landlords to upgrade the energy efficiency of their rental properties. 

In an article last year in Politico, “Populists vs. the Planet: How Climate Became The New Culture War Front Line”, Karl Mathiesen reported that populism was considered the biggest obstacle to addressing global warming.

“Right-wingers of various strains around the world have co-opted climate change into their culture war,” he wrote. “The fact this is happening in countries that produce a large share of global greenhouse gas emissions has alarmed some green advocates.” 

Grounding climate action in international human rights standards could simultaneously tackle the climate and inequality crises. Taking a rights-based approach to climate action could shatter the perception that the climate agenda is driven by elites and increase grassroot support, ultimately accelerating the path set out in the Paris Agreement. That means focusing on the obligations of states and the responsibilities of all businesses to promote and protect the rights of workers, individuals and groups facing risks of heightened vulnerability or marginalisation. 

The concept of a “just transition”, first championed by trade unions, is taking on increasing policy importance among governments, investors and other stakeholders. While there isn’t a single accepted definition, just transitions can be understood as fulfilling two core and connected purposes: environmental purpose – to transition to economic models that allow development within planetary boundaries; and social purpose – to ensure that the benefits of that shift are equitably spread throughout the population, and that related costs are not borne by traditionally marginalised communities.  

To develop recommendations for just transitions in a range of contexts, the Institute for Human Rights and Business (IHRB) is undertaking action research in eight cities around the world, collating examples of risks and opportunities relating to the built environment. What is emerging is a range of challenges and impacts. Building renovations and installations are often the focus of government interventions, and there is much to be learned by their implementation. 

In Prague, the New Green Savings programme provides subsidies for the installation of photovoltaic panels and heat pumps, building retrofits and improved insulation. However research by the IHRB has highlighted that costs are often transferred by landlords to tenants through increased rents aided by one-year contracts.

In many cases, tenants cannot afford the increased rent and are therefore displaced, a widespread issue known as “renovictions”. In Belgium, to minimise the risk of “renoviction”, some regions have capped the year-on-year rent increases while other cities have extended the eviction moratoriums introduced at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. 

In Portugal, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the government launched the Golden Visas programme. In the hope of decarbonising the building stock, visas were offered to any non-EU national who invested over €350,000 on a building renovation. Billions were invested in real estate purchased at exceptionally low prices, and renovations often resold or rented at extremely high prices. An independent study concluded that despite the huge influx of capital, the scheme exacerbated affordability issues for middle and low-income households and as a result the programme was axed this year. The newly formed Ministry for Housing is trying to make amends for damage done by the programme, in part by purchasing privately owned properties to provide affordable housing, though with limited success so far. 

In Paris, local officials are also trying to increase the public and affordable housing stock. A right of first refusal policy was introduced whereby multi-family buildings can only be sold on the open market after being offered to the city at a market rate. This allows greater control over social outcomes, as demonstrated by the CLEVER cities programme in Milan, where authorities prioritise rent-controlled social housing when rolling out building retrofits.  

Finally, in Copenhagen, developer Home.Earth is pioneering a new model for development. As an “evergreen investor” it never intends to sell rental properties it builds, planning for longer-term return on investments. Its properties exceed government environmental standards but are accessible to a wider range of people as there is no requirement for up-front deposits. Rather than returning all its profit to shareholders, 15 per cent is handed back to tenants, who are also supported by a no-evictions policy. Shareholders see lower short-term returns on investment but in the long term will benefit from reduced tenant turnover and maintenance costs, as tenants feel a greater sense of ownership in their homes. 

Over the past 20 years, the built environment industry has seen a huge shift in its consideration of environmental sustainability. What was once considered an inconvenient box-ticking exercise is now at the heart of projects. There is a clear business case for building green, attracting billions in investment each year across the EU.  

Those who were slow off the mark now find themselves hampered by regulation, trying to understand the implications for their business and with millions of pounds potentially tied to stranded assets. 

Given the rise in environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors driving investment decision-making, governments are now widening their focus to include the S for social, and are developing new frameworks, incentives and regulations aimed at sparking a similar transition in how social value is considered in built environment projects. 

In the UK, the Social Value Act has led to the emergence of a multitude of frameworks, and in the EU the taxonomy for sustainable activities could be followed by an analogous social taxonomy, which is still being explored following the first failed attempts in Brussels.  

Now is the perfect opportunity for value-driven developers and investors to lead the way in the pre-competitive space, ensuring they remain ahead of the regulatory curve and inspiring others across the industry to take action. Focusing on the S in ESG also serves as a risk mitigation strategy for businesses as legal and reporting requirements evolve. This can be seen in the fact that nearly half of US companies now publish human rights disclosures related to their supply chains, according to analysis by campaign group Just Capital.  

The toolkit we’ve developed at IHRB to support this work is the Dignity by Design framework. It guides decision-making throughout the built environment life cycle (from land acquisition to design and redevelopment) to manage human rights risks and maximise social outcomes. 

For each stage in the project life cycle, the framework highlights key decisions that may affect the human rights of workers, local communities and other stakeholders and presents the relevant standards and regulations to which governments and businesses have already committed, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It also provides case studies of emerging good practice. 

Dignity by Design ensures throughout all stages of the built environment lifecycle that human rights standards are upheld, including the cross-cutting principles of transparency, accountability, participation and non-discrimination. 

Everyone has the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the decisions that affect their neighbourhoods and lives. This includes women, children, minorities, migrants, refugees, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, older people and others whose perspectives are often excluded. Trade unions and civil society can operate freely. All decisions are free from corruption. No one is forcibly evicted from their home, in accordance with international standards. Land acquisition is carried out with meaningful consultation and following due process. Indigenous and cultural rights are protected. The right to adequate housing is respected – including security of tenure, affordability and habitability. All neighbourhoods have access to adequate infrastructure, public space, transportation, and employment opportunities. Systemic and past injustices are taken into account. Resilience to climate-related and other disasters is strengthened, with an emphasis on participation and social cohesion.

Under Dignity by Design, the built environment expands inclusion and accessibility, regardless of age, ability, race and gender, and must make a positive impact on physical and mental health and seek to open rather than close space for the realisation of all human rights and the protection of human dignity. 

Under the framework, workers’ rights are respected in all tiers of the construction process by lead companies and sub-contractors. Buildings must be structurally safe, putting an end to the preventable loss of life in collapses and fires. Materials are selected and sourced responsibly, with regard to their social and environmental impacts. Everyone, including marginalised communities, has healthy, accessible, and safe, spaces to live, work and be at leisure. Tenants and users are free from harassment. 

Technology is harnessed in a way that safeguards digital rights including privacy and freedom of expression. Transparent, accountable and reciprocal relationships are maintained with neighbouring communities. Vacant land is seen as an opportunity to realise communities’ needs, while land-use changes prioritise community consultation over financial speculation. Building materials are reused and recycled responsibly.

In doing so, the framework helps communities shape decisions that impact their lives and neighbourhoods. It also supports governments to establish the regulatory, planning and procurement context for just, thriving urban areas and investors and developers to manage social risks and channel investments into sustainable projects that meet locally defined needs. The framework can also be used to support architects and engineers to respect dignity and human rights through their operations and supply chains. 

In the Norwegian city of Bergen, the Dignity by Design framework has been used to support the conversion of a teacher-training centre into the city’s Inclusion Centre, which features a language school and other services for newly arrived refugees and migrants, as well as facilities open to the neighbouring community.

Embedding the framework from the outset has informed decisions such as the co-location of services that may be needed by newly arrived refugees, providing a one-stop shop that is easily accessible. It also led to the design of the canteen, toilets and public and prayer spaces taking into account the cultural background and lived experience of different users. The choice of materials also maximises reuse and minimises the length of supply chains to ensure transparency and accountability. The framework also includes examples where the private sector is delivering social value, from Standard Life Aberdeen’s ESG impact dial to Aviva’s Sustainable Transitions Loan Framework and Gecina’s initiative to expand affordable low-carbon rental housing in Paris.  

Similarly, governments have a key role to play in both protecting the social capital that already exists in many communities and enhancing it through their initiatives, including ensuring that transformational private capital results in equitable outcomes. IHRB has published a City Toolkit for local government, which highlights the levers at their disposal, provides policy recommendations, and collates examples of good practice from around the world.

The climate crisis is the most pressing challenge we are facing but a narrow focus on decarbonisation risks slowing progress and fast-tracking us into an even greater inequality crisis. While populist narratives are increasingly pitching climate action and social justice against each other, success lies in tackling both in harmony with each other. This will require multi-sector and stakeholder collaboration at all levels, as well as shared visions and tools for a greener, fairer future. A human rights approach, with its wide recognition and adoption, can be a unifying force, aligning these agendas and accelerating climate action by grounding responses in social justice.