Privatisation is a process through which the performance of services and activities traditionally performed by the government is transferred to private sector actors. In other words, privatisation refers to private sector involvement in public service projects and services, such as hospitals, schools, water, sanitation, prisons, roads, energy utilities or railways. Privatisation can take many forms, including ownership, financing, management, and service delivery. It can be achieved through, for instance, public-private partnerships, divestiture, or outsourcing of public service delivery (See the Issue page on State-Owned Enterprises/Public-Private Partnerships for more information).
A 2018 article on the lessons from privatisation in developing countries suggests that privatisation considerably increased financial performance and economic efficiency in sectors such as banking and energy.
“Privatization is premised on assumptions fundamentally different from those that underpin respect for human rights, such as dignity and equality. Profit is the overriding objective, and considerations such as equality and non-discrimination are inevitably sidelined. Rights holders are transformed into clients, and those who are poor, needy or troubled are marginalized.”
The Special Rapporteur concludes that “[t]he consequences for human rights are overwhelmingly negative.”
The UN CESCR General Comment No. 24 explains that privatisation is not prohibited by international human rights law even in areas of essential public service. However, the Committee indicates the concern that “goods and services that are necessary for the enjoyment of basic economic, social and cultural rights may become less affordable as a result of such goods and services being provided by the private sector, or that quality may be sacrificed for the sake of increasing profits.” The UN Secretary-General’s 2017 report on the Right to Development promotes human rights impact assessment, an instrument derived from the UNGPs, to ensure that privatisation does not occur at the expense of equitable access to essential services and human rights.
“States do not relinquish their international human rights law obligations when they privatize the delivery of services that may impact upon the enjoyment of human rights. Failure by States to ensure that business enterprises performing such services operate in a manner consistent with the State’s human rights obligations may entail both reputational and legal consequences for the State itself. As a necessary step, the relevant service contracts or enabling legislation should clarify the State’s expectations that these enterprises respect human rights. States should ensure that they can effectively oversee the enterprises’ activities, including through the provision of adequate independent monitoring and accountability mechanisms.”
In the absence of regulations, standards and oversight, the overall impact of privatisation can become burdensome for individuals and States alike. The International Labour Organization (ILO) published a report in 2018 that notes that out of 30 Eastern European and Latin American countries that had privatised their mandatory pension system between 1981 and 2014, 18 countries reversed their decision. This ILO report identifies the rationales behind these reversals as the deterioration of pension benefits, an increase in gender and income inequality, limited effects on capital markets, and high administrative costs, among others. Similarly, the Public Interest’s 2016 report on the effect of privatisation on inequality details the impacts of privatisation on the economically disadvantaged and people of colour in the US.
Privatisation of deprivation of liberty and use of force
The outsourcing of State functions related to deprivation of liberty (in criminal justice or migration control) and the use of force (in external conflicts or internal security) has been considered as exacerbating human rights abuses linked to these fields. In Resolution 33/4, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) expressed concerns about the impact of the activities of private security and military companies on the enjoyment of human rights, with specific emphasis on armed conflicts, prisons and migrant detention facilities. The Resolution noted that private entities operating in these areas are rarely held accountable for human rights abuses.
States around the world actively use companies from the private military and security sectors in external or internal conflicts (Please see the Issue page on Security sector for more information). According to a 2020 study, in 2019, there were 53,000 US contractors in the Middle East, compared to 35,000 US troops, and the US spent over US$370 billion on contracting. The human rights impacts of privatising war are shown through stories such as the Nisour Square massacre, perpetrated by the employees of Blackwater Security Consulting (now Academi) in 2007, or the chain of human rights abuses linked to another major US contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan, such as trafficking and sexual abuse of minors. Private military companies have also been accused of hiring former child soldiers and perpetrating gender-based and sexual violence.
The 2017 Report of the UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries describes the global trend of privatisation in prisons and immigration detention facilities as a threat to human rights, including violations related to due process, economic exploitation, physical, mental and sexual abuse. The Working Group names the profit motive as the main issue behind such abuses. The American Bar Association’s 2020 report indicates that private companies often have an economic incentive to engage in practices that extend individuals’ involvement in the system and that extract as much money as possible.
Private facilities and services are often employed in immigration control across the world. In Australia, G4S was contracted to provide security services to the Manus Regional Processing Centre, one of Australia’s offshore detention facilities for refugees and asylum seekers. In 2014, G4S staff were involved in violence at the Centre, which saw one person killed and 77 injured. A G4S security guard was later convicted of murder. The incident was also the subject of a class action, which resulted in Australia’s largest human rights settlement, and the defendants, including the Australian State and G4S, were forced to pay AUS$70m in compensation.
According to the Human Rights Watch, 81% of the immigrant detainees in the US by 2020 are held in privately run detention centres, which, according to a 2020 report, have often been associated with inhumane living conditions, physical violence, mental distress, lack of access to hygiene products, poor quality of nutrition and forced labour, among other abuses. The COVID-19 pandemic brought company-run detention facilities under the spotlight, as poor conditions, negligent treatment and the lack of resources resulted in a health crisis within the facilities.
A 2025 analysis published by Just Security indicates that while private prison companies are poised to expand their roles and profits with the new influx of funding, some investors have walked away from these companies due to ethical concerns.
In 2009, the Israeli Supreme Court declared that a privately managed prison inherently violated human dignity and, therefore, was unconstitutional. The primary reason behind the decision was that an economic motive stands against the public purpose of criminal punishment. Under Assembly Bill 32, signed and adopted in 2019, California aimed to phase out private, for-profit criminal justice and immigration facilities by 2028 (Although the ban remains in place for private prisons in the state, the federal court found the law unconstitutional as applied to private detention contracts for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies).
Privatisation of education
A 2016 Report by the Global Campaign for Education defines privatisation of education as “the process by which a growing proportion of the education system is owned, funded, or operated by non-State actors.” This includes for-profit or non-profit institutions operated by non-State actors (such as businesses, charities, and religious organisations), and implies different levels and degrees of private involvement, ranging from institutions with private finance and provision to public-private partnerships.
The right to education is a universally recognised human right and States are not exempt from their obligations to protect, respect and fulfil even in cases of delegating their functions to private actors (CRC General Comment No. 16). In 2016, Human rights bodies have raised concerns on the growth of privatisation impacting on the right to education, in particular regarding gender and socio-economic equality, high fees, the lack of regulations for and oversight of private provision of education. According to a 2014 Report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to education, “Privatization in education cripples the universality of the right to education as well as the fundamental principles of human rights law by aggravating marginalization and exclusion in education and creating inequities in society.”
A 2014 submission of thirteen organisations to claims that privatising primary education services leads to increased discrimination against women, as private entities are less likely to stand against existing stereotypes and stigmas.
A 2015 UNESCO publication concluded that, although learning outcomes could be considered of higher quality in privatised education systems, privatisation reinforced existing inequalities and segregation in educational opportunities as it complicated the access to education for people with low incomes. A 2014 Report by the Right to Education Project, based on 18 social research papers from Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, explains that privatisation negatively impacts gender equality, as, considering high fees, parents are more likely to prioritise the education of boys than girls.
These effects are exacerbated in countries with extremely high levels of privatisation. For instance, Chile, where 63% of students in primary education in 2023 were enrolled in private institutions, was found in 2014 to have the most segregated education system by socio-economic status within the 65 PISA-tested (the Program for International Student Assessment) countries.
In 2019, the group of international experts adopted the Abidjan Guiding Principles on the human rights obligations of States to provide public education and to regulate private involvement in education. These Principles reflect the tensions between the privatisation trend and the right to education, and reiterate, among other principles, the importance of equality, accessibility, and the quality of education.
Privatisation of health care
Private healthcare is a rapidly growing industry and is projected to reach US$7.58 trillion by 2033.
Private sector involvement in healthcare takes many forms, including the full or partial privatisation of the health system, the direct delivery of certain goods and services, the production of medical equipment or the construction of health infrastructure.
State systems vary in terms of the proportions of the public-private mix. According to the OECD’s Health at a Glance 2023, in 2021, public sources (government transfers + social contributions) financed about 73% of health care spending on average across OECD countries. In some countries with government-financed systems (e.g. Norway, Sweden, Denmark), government transfers fund 85% or more of health expenditure. On the other hand, a 2024 WHO report shows that out-of-pocket spending remained the primary source of health financing in 30 low- and lower middle-income countries.
However, the privatisation of of healthcare can also undermine the availability, accessibility, quality, equality, and equity of health facilities, goods, and services. A 2014 article identifies these impacts of privatisation and links them to the level of commitment to protecting the right to health, type of health system, degree of privatisation, capacity and willingness to set regulations for private actors and cost of private services and goods. A 2021 report analysing the effects of embracing the private sectorin Kenya indicates that this practice ledto the exclusion and denial of services for people who cannot afford private services,pushingthese communities into povertyand debt due to the highcost of care.
In 2023, commentators noted that in low- and middle-income countries like Kenya and Nigeria, residents of urban informal settlements often rely on affordable private health services when public options are unavailable. Yet, these facilities are commonly unsafe, unregulated, and deliver poor-quality care, including through the use of expired medicines, faulty diagnoses. A 2024 study on hospitals transitioning from public to private ownership found that, although such hospitals often became more profitable, greater privatisation frequently correlated with poorer health outcomes for patients. A 2025 publication from WHO provides guidance for governments on how to effectively navigate the challenges and risks of integrating private providers into publicly funded healthcare networks, which carry risks, including less public control over quality, costs, and equity.
Human rights bodies have emphasised problems with the lack of regulations and oversight of private actors in the sector, high costs and fees, increased disparities and inequalities, and access to essential medicines in countries worldwide. A 2020 article links the increased privatisation in the healthcare sector to negative health outcomes and responses to COVID-19 in India. To address the issues of privatisation, a report from 2019 analyses the issue of privatised healthcare and offers a human rights impact assessment framework to determine the human rights impact of the increasing activity by private actors in the healthcare sector. In 2023, the Global Health Law Consortium, the International Commission of Jurists and Fondation Brocher published “Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights & Public Health Emergencies”. The Principles emphasise that States “must regulate and monitor engaged non-State actors to prevent them from impairing the enjoyment of human rights and provide for redress and accountability”, including “corporate entities such as private healthcare providers and insurers, and manufacturers of health goods, facilities and technologies” (See the Issue page on Health and social care for more information).
Privatisation of water
Public Services International reports that prices increased by 125% from 2008 to 2015 after water privatisation in Romania. According to a journalist investigation, water privatisation resulted in millions of cases of cut-offs since 1998, as well as a deadly outbreak of Cholera in South Africa in 2001.
In Argentina, Buenos Aires water services were privatised in the 1990s, which led to expansion of coverage but also affordability issues for poorer households. The concession was signed in 1993 and revoked in 2006. The concession was criticised for poor water quality and unmet expansion targets, while supporters argued frozen tariffs during the 2001 crisis made compliance difficult. In 2025, new plans were announced to privatise AySA, the state‑owned company serving 11.2 million people in Buenos Aires and surrounding areas, with 90% of shares to be sold to private capital. The privatisation of water through foreign investment has become a common occurrence throughout the world which has been explored by academics with reference to Argentina.
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development highlights Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships as a key instrument for advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It recognises the diverse private sector, from micro-enterprises and cooperatives to multinational corporations, as an essential actor in implementing the SDGs. SDG Target 17.16 calls for strengthening global partnerships to mobilise and share knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial resources, particularly for developing countries, while Target 17.17 emphasises the promotion of effective public-private and civil society partnerships.
Privatisation represents one pathway through which the private sector engages in implementing the SDGs, especially in areas such as health, education, and infrastructure. When designed responsibly, privatisation can mobilise capital and introduce innovation that helps address resource and capacity gaps. However, as analysed, it can also restrict equitable access to essential services and exacerbate inequalities. While the private sector can help in bridging the significant financing gap to achieve the SDGs by 2030, its involvement must safeguard human rights and advance key goals such as ending poverty (SDG 1), ensuring health and well-being (SDG 3), providing quality education (SDG 4), and reducing inequalities (SDG 10). According to the UN Sustainable Development Goals Report 2025, although data availability for SDG monitoring has expanded, global data systems remain underfunded and fragile, with particularly limited information on progress toward Targets 17.16 and 17.17 (See the Issue page on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development for more information).
There are many situations where the State acts as a business enterprise or directly support this type of organisations, for example in the case of public business enterprises, public purchases, the promotion of investment, innovation and exports, or the privatisation of utilities. According to the Guiding Principles, in these cases States must take additional steps to protect against adverse impacts caused by business enterprises they own or who are under their control, or who receive important support and services from state bodies, in which case they must request that due diligence processes are in place regarding human rights.
Protection of social service clients [pages 15-16]
Implements Principle 5
States often delegate the performance of some of their tasks to private entities, though this does not relieve them of their human rights commitments. In fact, they must find ways of meeting their human rights duties even in these circumstances.
There are many situations where the roles of the state are transferred to a private entity. In order to protect human rights, increased attention needs to be paid, for example, to the social services sector. Clients in receipt of residence-based social services are particularly vulnerable and in many respects are dependent on the support and care provided within the scope of social services. The state should make sure that checks on respect for human rights are run especially for these types of social services. The same conclusion has been reached, for instance, by the Ombudsman in her reports on visits to retirement homes and other facilities.
Current state of play:
The state runs checks on social service providers upon registration and during the provision of services. Control mechanisms also centre on checking respect for the human rights of social service clients.
The law has yet to properly address and penalise the “illegal” unregistered provision of social services. Legislative instruments are being phased in that will make it possible to put a stop to the provision of such services. In August 2016, an amendment to the Social Services Act took effect that established the possibility of carrying out checks on natural and legal persons who have not been issued with a registration decision if there are grounds to suspect that those persons are providing social services without authorisation. The penalty for providing such services was also increased from CZK 1 million to CZK 2 million.
An amendment has been proposed that will require delegated municipal authorities/military district authorities to actively seek out illegal social service providers and immediately report their suspicions that such illegal services are being provided in their territory to the competent municipal authority of a municipality with extended powers and to the regional authority.
Tasks:
Issue implementing legislation to establish staffing, material and technical standards forming a basis, in particular, for the registration of social services.
Coordinator: Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs
Deadline: The material and technical conditions of residence-based social services by 31 December 2018; the staffing conditions of social services by 31 December 2020
Increase the methodological support for inspections of social service provision.
Coordinator: Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs
Deadline: Running
Deliver a more precise legislative definition of penalties in situations where the rights of social service clients are infringed.
Coordinator: Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs
Deadline: 31 December 2020
Increase staffing levels at the registering body and increase the numbers of checks carried out.
Coordinator: Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs
Action: Cooperate with private sector-led sustainability compliance initiatives and mechanisms on labour standards and allow regular and independent audits to be conducted by certified auditors or NGOs.
The Nigeria NAP provides a list of existing constitutional obligations, domestic legislation, internation obligations, and police and administrative steps. This breakdown only looks at the list of challenges and the implementation of the 3 pillars of the UNGPs.
The Nigerian NAP on Business and Human Rights does not address this issue.
2.4 Competitive tendering for public services [page 25]
The fifth principle states that:
States should exercise adequate oversight in order to meet their international human rights obligations when they contract with, or legislate for, business enterprises to provide services that may impact upon the enjoyment of human rights.
Examples of public services subject to competitive tendering that may have consequences for human rights are the operation of asylum reception centres, hospitals and schools. The state may also be held responsible for human rights violations if these result from inadequate management or control of private service providers within the state’s sphere of responsibility. The Government considers that Norwegian law and supervisory authorities are adequate for this purpose, and that there is no need for special measures at present.
2. Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy
Activities under the European Social Fund
[page 7]
“Another important aspect of furthering social economy is the development social economy entities’ activities in the field of social services. Social economy entities, operating on the basis of local communities, are an important provider of social services. Thus, it is also critical to build up the market by way of encouraging local authorities to entrust social economy entities with the provision of said services.”
4. Ministry of Family and Social Policy
The first Polish Strategy for Persons with Disabilities 2021–2030
[page 17]
“Concomitant with the deinstitutionalisation process will be the process of reforming entities dealing with social services, inter alia through establishing Social Services Centres. Another important factor in this respect will be facilitation of access of persons with disabilities to information on support offer available to those persons so that comprehensive, reliable and up-to-date information on this subject is provided by employees of entities dealing with social services.”
B. PILLAR I: The State duty to protect human rights
B.2. OPERACIONAL PRINCIPLES
Guiding Principle 5. States should exercise adequate oversight in order to meet their international human rights obligations when they contract with, or legislate for, business enterprises to provide services that may impact upon the enjoyment of human rights.
[Page 18]
Guiding Principle 5 considers situations in which the State contracts with companies to provide services with a possible impact on the enjoyment of human rights. The lack of guarantees for the respect for human rights by companies which provide such services can have detrimental consequences for the State itself, not only in the field of reputation but also in the legal field.
MEASURES:
1. The Public Administrations will exercise an adequate supervision of the possible impact on human rights when contracting the services of companies, both within and outside of Spanish territory. This supervision must take into account the criteria of the specialized institutions, in accordance with the application of the Spanish CSR Strategy.
2.2 Updating the measures contained in the NAP 2020–2023
Measure 9: Human rights due diligence by federal government-associated businesses
The Federal Administration will support federal government-associated limited companies and will work with boards of directors to discuss human rights-related requirements and promote the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles.
(Measure 9 in the 2020-2023 NAP relates to privatisation. See the 2020-2023 NAP breakdown for more information)
The 2024-27 National Action Plan is supplemental to the 2020-23 NAP. The 2020-2023 NAP explicitly addresses this issue.
Additional Information about the 2020-23 NAP can be found here.
3.4 Action Plan on Cross Border Investment and Multinational Enterprises
3.4.3 Action Plan (2019–2022)
Pillar 1: State duties in protecting (Protect)
No.
Issues
Activities
Responsible agencies
Time-frame (2019–2022)
Indicators (wide frame)
Compliance with National Strategy/ SDGs/UNGPs
3.
Promotion of Investment
Require studies and assessments of the risk and impact on human rights (human rights due diligence) before undertaking large-scale projects or projects related to public services, including in the case of joint investment between the government and private sectors to prepare conducting projects relating to infrastructure and public services that are a duty of the state, including in the case that the government has assigned the private sector to do the project instead
– Office of the Economic and Social Development Council
– Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (Bureau of Policy and Environmental Plan)
– Ministry of Transport
– Ministry of Finance (Office of the State Enterprise Policy Office)
– Ministry of Energy
– Ministry of Industry (Office of Economic Cooperation and Neighbouring Countries (Public Organization))
2019–2022
A study to assess the risk and human rights impact (human rights due diligence) before the implementation of large-scale projects
– National Strategy for National Competitiveness Enhancement
– National Strategy for Human Capital Development and Strengthening
– National Strategy for Public Sector Rebalancing and Development
In Africa, there is a growing rate of service provision by the private actors and this is attributed to the recognition that some bilateral donors and international institutions increasingly put pressure on African Countries to privatize or facilitate access to private actors in service delivery particularly health and education sectors, without consideration for State Parties’ obligations under the African Charter (ACHPR / Res. 420 (LXIV) 2019).
NRM Manifesto 2021-2026 is committed to delivering social services like education and health, noting that “an educated and healthy population is key in improving people’s standards of living.” NDP III states that the government will work with the private sector on Human Capital Development to ensure that the resource-led sustainable industrialization process is both sustainable and beneficial to its citizens. In Uganda, the private sector is gradually playing a prominent role in service delivery, in areas which were the traditional domain of the State, through purely private engagements as well as Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). The rapid increase of the private sector development has not been matched by adequate regulation on protection and fulfilment of human rights within the context of businesses.
Although the government has passed the PPP Act (2010), PPP Guidelines and has a National Strategy for Private Sector Development 2017/18-2021/22 in place; there is no legal requirement to enforce respect for and compliance with human rights standards.
The rising cost of social services provided by private actors has resulted in unaffordability of these services. From the stakeholder consultations, it emerged that the private social service providers were viola ng rights of the public through charging exorbitant fees for their services, demanding for cash pay prior to service delivery particularly in health sector, displaying discrimination in employment opportunities, under payment of their staff among others.
The Africa Commission on Human and Peoples Rights (Resolution 420) recognising these challenges; has implored State Parties to enact legislative and policy frameworks regulating private actors in social service delivery and ensure that their involvement is in conformity with regional and international human rights standards.
Belgium (2017 - open)
Chile (2017-2020)
Colombia (2020-2022)
Czechia (2017-2022)
Denmark (2014-open)
Finland (2014-2016)
France (2017-open)
Georgia (2018-2020)
Germany (2016-2020)
Ghana (2025 - 2029)
Ireland (2017-2020)
Italy (2021-2026)
Japan (2020-2025)
Liberia (2024 - 2028)
Lithuania (2015-open)
Luxembourg (2020-2022)
Malaysia (2025-2030)
Netherlands (2022-2026)
Nigeria (2024-2028)
Norway (2015-open)
Pakistan (2021-2026)
Peru (2021-2025)
Poland (2021-2024)
Slovenia (2018-open)
South Korea (2018-2022)
Spain (2017-2020)
Sweden (2017-open)
Switzerland (2024-2027)
Thailand (2019-2022)
Uganda (2021-2026)
United Kingdom (2016-open)
United States (2024 - open)
