Taxes – compulsory contributions by individuals and entities to local, regional and State governments – are primarily aimed at raising resources for government expenditures. They also serve other purposes, including redressing inequalities in society and deterring or encouraging certain behaviours, notably consumer choices deemed harmful to, for example, their own health or to the environment. Fiscal and tax policies that are grounded in human rights can lead to poverty reduction and promote sustainable development. Similarly, tax policies aimed at supporting sustainable development can lead to improved fulfilment and protection of human rights.
Tax incentives refer to the “preferentially favourable treatment to some subset of taxpayers with the intention of promoting particular activities”. States are increasingly using tax incentives to promote private research and development activities (R&D) and investment. According to 2025 data from the OECD, nearly 55% of total support for business R&D in the OECD area is provided through tax incentives. The Platform on Collaboration on Tax highlights key risks associated with offering tax incentives: first, it may reduce government revenue or influence behaviour in ways that do not produce enough social benefit to justify the cost; second, it can lead to governance issues, such as misuse or corruption. In May 2025, the Platform on Collaboration on Tax published the final version of the Tax Incentives Principles to help policymakers identify and secure any potential social gains from tax incentives while avoiding their pitfalls.
As outlined by the IMF, multinational corporations (MNCs) employ a range of techniques to shift profits and minimise their overall corporate tax liability. While the term “tax avoidance” refers to legal arrangements, the term “tax evasion” refers to illegal arrangements. As the OECD explains, “Domestic tax base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS)” refers to the strategies that MNCs use to exploit loopholes in tax rules to artificially shift profits to low or no-tax locations as a way to avoid paying tax. The OECD clarifies that “BEPS costs countries US$100-240 billion in lost revenue annually, equivalent to 4-10% of global corporate income tax revenue”, by undermining the integrity and fairness of the tax systems. It is further noted that developing countries suffer disproportionately from BEPS arrangements, as they have a higher reliance on corporate income tax.
Beyond tax incentives and tax avoidance is tax evasion and tax abuse. While the later are not new, scandals such as the Panama Papers have raised awareness about the current scale of the problem, with “dozens of political leaders from all corners of the globe being implicated in large-scale tax evasion and avoidance through tax havens, effectively robbing government coffers around the world of much-needed resources that might otherwise be used to fulfil the human rights of ordinary citizens.” According to the State of Tax Justice Report 2024, published by the Tax Justice Network, countries are losing approximately US$492 billion in tax revenue each year to multinational corporations and wealthy individuals who use tax havens to underpay their taxes.
In line with the UN Guiding Principle 8 on Business and Human Rights, States should ensure policy coherence so that their tax and fiscal policies are aligned with their international human rights obligations. This means that States are expected to strive for coherence between corporate/fiscal tax and human rights laws and policies, both at the domestic and international levels, and simultaneously avoid corporate, fiscal or tax measures that have regressive impacts on human rights. Additionally, all business enterprises, including tax advisors and financial institutions, need to ensure that their tax planning strategies and services do not negatively impact human rights.
Read more
A report published by the Tax Justice Network in July 2025, “Corporate Tax Abuse: The Elephant in the Room of Business & Human Rights”, identifies the cross-border tax abuse as one of the “most severe and pervasive drivers of human rights violations linked to the activities of business entities.”
In December 2023, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution for the Promotion of inclusive and effective international tax cooperation at the United Nations. In this resolution, the UNGA noted that aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion lead to a corrosive effect on trust, the social compact, financial integrity, the rule of law and sustainable development by affecting the poorest and most vulnerable. Furthermore, the UNGA recognized “the need for all countries to work together to eliminate tax evasion, tax base erosion and profit shifting and to ensure that all taxpayers, especially multinational companies and transnational corporations, pay taxes to the Governments of countries where economic activity occurs, value is created and from where revenues are generated, in accordance with national and international laws and policies”.
With the UNGA’s resolution, a Member State-led, open-ended ad hoc intergovernmental committee was established for the purpose of drafting terms of reference for a United Nations framework convention on international tax cooperation. The terms of reference developed in line with this resolution recognise that the efforts to achieve the objectives of the framework convention should align with the States’ obligations under international human rights law, and should take a holistic, sustainable development perspective that covers in a balanced and integrated manner economic, social and environmental policy aspects.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) states that ‘[e]ach State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.’ Also, the Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights highlight that the failure of States to utilise the maximum available resources to realise human rights is a violation of ICESCR. States, therefore, should ensure their domestic resource mobilisation is fit for purpose. ICESCR Article 11 on the right to a decent standard of living, provides that ‘States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realisation of this right, recognising to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation.’
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights noted in its 2017 General Comment No. 24 that States should ensure that corporate strategies do not undermine their efforts to fully realise the rights set out in the Covenant. The General Comment also states in paragraph 37 that “to combat abusive tax practices by transnational corporations, States should […] deepen international tax cooperation” and that developed countries should impose “a minimum corporate income tax rate” seeing that “lowering the rates of corporate tax solely with a view to attracting investors encourages a race to the bottom that ultimately undermines the ability of all States to mobilize resources domestically to realize Covenant rights.”
The need for improved domestic resource mobilisation is stressed in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development (AAAA), which is a global framework for financing post-2015 development, including the 2030 Agenda. The agreement was reached by 193 UN Member States who commit to enhancing revenue administration by improving fairness, transparency, efficiency and effectiveness of tax systems. Therefore, the concrete actions agreed in the AAAA provide the foundation for a revitalised global partnership for financing a sustainable development that leaves no one behind.
In a statement issued in March 2025, “Tax policy and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights called on States to adopt a human rights-based approach while designing and implementing their tax policies, to promote economic, social and cultural rights and reduce high levels of inequality. In this statement, the Committee emphasised several key points, including the negative impacts of consumption taxes such as value-added tax (VAT) on disadvantaged groups like low-income families and single-parent households; the ways in which regressive and ineffective tax policies hamper States’ capacity to fulfil economic, social and cultural rights; and the need for States to conduct impact assessments of both existing and proposed tax policies on the realisation of these rights, with a particular focus on overall distributional effects and the tax burden borne by different income groups, women, and other disadvantaged populations.
A report published by the Tax Justice Network in July 2025, “Corporate Tax Abuse: The Elephant in the Room of Business & Human Rights”, examines how human rights norms and standards should be incorporated into the design and implementation of taxation policies, the negotiation of international taxation agreements and the tax planning strategies of business actors. The report highlights Kenya’s National Action Plan (NAP) as an example, which established ‘Revenue Transparency and Management’ – including the taxation-human rights nexus – as one of five guiding themes. Kenya’s NAP states that “tax justice and the regulation of financial behaviour of companies can no longer be
treated in isolation from the corporate responsibility to respect human rights”. It further reiterates: “Like many other jurisdictions, Kenya faces challenges concerning revenue mobilisation and the link to business activities, among them illicit financial flows, tax avoidance and tax evasion by businesses. These practices result in a reduction of the resources available for investment in essential social services, fostering inequalities, undermining economic and social institutions, and even discouraging transparency in matters of public finances.”
As highlighted by Amnesty International in 2024, States should take action to prevent tax evasion and avoidance in several key areas, including transfer pricing, double taxation agreements, tax havens, tax competition, and illicit financial flows (IFFs). There are several concrete measures that States can take to tackle tax evasion and avoidance and to ensure that business enterprises pay their fair share of taxes to raise revenue to meet human rights obligations, as well as to promote sustainable development:
Improving financial transparency by engaging in automatic exchange of financial information to improve transparency and fight tax evasion and avoidance, including through the OECD-led Common Reporting Standard.
Introducing a register of the ultimate beneficial ownership of companies, trusts, and foundations incorporated or registered in their jurisdiction that is comprehensive, public, free-to-use, and contains up-to-date, verified information.
Ensuring that MNCs headquartered in their jurisdiction file a Country-By-Country report (CBCr) which, as a minimum, should meet the OECD’s standards for CBC reporting.
Publishing on an annual basis which companies are benefiting from statutory tax incentives (i.e. incentives that all companies operating, for example, within a certain sector or in a certain location can access) and discretionary tax incentives (i.e. incentives that are negotiated with individual companies and are accessible only to them), and how much they cost the State. States should review their tax incentives with a view to cancelling or phasing out those that are deemed harmful to the State’s ability to raise enough revenue to meet its human rights obligations, and should, as far as possible, avoid granting discretionary tax incentives.
Ensuring that a State’s tax authorities are well-resourced, well-trained, and have the necessary legal underpinnings and administrative and technological tools to fulfil their mandate effectively. Tax authorities should also be independent from all branches of government.
In addition to the measures listed above, States can also promote increased revenue collection for protecting and fulfilling human rights by:
Ensuring that wealth taxes are enforced in a progressive manner, so that those most able to pay taxes also do so. This includes taxes on the appreciation of wealth – such as capital gains taxes; the transfer of wealth – such as inheritance taxes; and the holding of wealth – such as ongoing property taxes.
Ensuring consumption taxes – such as Value Added Tax and excise taxes – are implemented in a way which does not put a disproportionate tax burden on poor and vulnerable socio-economic groups. This can be done by exempting or zero-rating items consumed predominantly by the poor while raising rates on items consumed mainly by richer segments of society. States should also consider the potential to utilise excise taxes for wider human rights and SDG-related policy objectives – such as improving public health or reducing carbon emissions – as well as for revenue purposes.
Ensuring their tax treaty networks do not provide opportunities for multinational business enterprises to avoid paying taxes altogether by manipulating mismatches in tax treaties around the world. This should include cancelling tax treaties with tax havens; introducing robust anti-abuse clauses in all existing tax treaties; and ensuring provisions regulating, e.g. withholding taxes on cross-border transactions such as dividend, interest and management fee payments, so as not to provide incentives for companies to artificially re-route such transactions to take advantage of lower rates.
It is also important to ensure that tax policy efforts do not have unwanted consequences, such as gender discrimination. The OECD highlights in its 2022 report that “even in tax systems that do not include overt gender biases, other implicit biases exist due to the interaction of the tax system with differences in the nature and level of income earned by men and women, consumption decisions, the ownership of property and wealth, and the impact of different social expectations on male and female taxpayers.” The report suggests that States and policymakers address the impact of implicit bias in their tax systems by taking gender equality into account in tax policy design and tax administration systems.
In its 2024 report, Amnesty International analyses the relationship between tax and gender justice, as well as tax and climate justice. Regarding the former, the report advises States to adopt an intersectional feminist approach and to carry out human rights impact assessments of proposed tax measures to prevent gender-based and intersectional discrimination, as well as to ensure the participation of affected people in the development of taxation policies. Concerning the relationship between tax and climate justice, the report highlights the potential avenues through which taxes can be used to address climate change challenges, such as repricing and disincentivizing environmentally hazardous activities, including those that cause the emission of polluting greenhouse gases, or incentivizing greener forms of production and consumption (See the Issue pages on Gender & women’s rights and Environment & climate change for more information).
A 2022 study used estimates on tax abuse with a model of the relationship between government revenue and the determinants of health to quantify the potential for progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. This study found that “the increase in government revenue equivalent to global tax abuses is associated with 36 million people having access to basic sanitation and 18 million having access to basic drinking water…, over a ten-year period, this increase would be associated with over 600,000 children and almost 80,000 mothers surviving.” For more information on taxation and the SDGs, and recommendations on how countries can reform their tax policies to maximise domestic resource mobilisation, see the Danish Institute for Human Rights’ Means of Implementation.
SDG target 17.1 requires States to ‘strengthen domestic resource mobilisation, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection.’ The two specific indicators focus on total government revenue as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and the proportion of domestic budget funded by domestic taxes.
SDG target 17.1 focuses mainly on quantitative variables (such as the revenue-to-GDP ratio, where this measures a government’s total revenues from e.g. tax as a percentage of the total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the country). However, the way that the money is raised will also have an impact on sustainable development and the fulfilment of human rights. A well-designed tax system can help ensure that those better able to pay also contribute more and can help avoid the burden of taxation falling disproportionately on poorer segments of society. Efficient and fair tax systems also encourage better tax morale and can be an important component in State and institution building and are thus relevant for the achievement of the SDGs as a whole.
The 2030 Agenda’s commitment to improved domestic resource mobilisation is reaffirmed in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA), which among other things commits to: ending harmful tax practices; enhancing revenue administration through modernized, progressive tax systems, improved tax policy and more efficient tax collection; and ensuring that sure that all companies, including multinationals, pay taxes to the Governments of countries where economic activity occurs and value is created.
As part of the UNDP’s Sustainable Finance Hub, the Tax for SDGs Initiative was established to promote the idea that “taxation is considered both a tool for revenue collection and a policy instrument to encourage sustainable growth strategies and influence behaviour towards desired outcomes related to climate, nature, well-being, and governance.” The Tax for SDGs Initiative created the SDG Taxation Framework by offering diagnostic evaluations and tailored support to optimise the linkage of a country’s tax system with the SDGs, and by identifying tax strategies that can effectively contribute to achieving specific SDG targets (See the Issue page for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development for more information).
UNGA, Report of the second session of the Ad Hoc Committee to Draft Terms of Reference for a United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, UN Doc. A/79/333, (30 August 2024).
III. First National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights in Chile
Normative Framework (page 20)
Business enterprises are basic economic units in society which, through their activity, may generate a series of positive impacts on society such as the creation of employment and payment of taxes which, in turn, allows the State to invest public money in the realisation of human rights.
i. Fundamental Pillar 1: The State’s obligation to protect human rights
(…)
Strand 2 [Eje nº 2]: Encourage the creation of regulations and strategies that promote respect for human rights in the development of business activities.
(…)
The Ministry of Culture [Mincultura] will promote the protection of human rights in the entrepreneurship that benefits from the tax and financing strategies located in the framework of the Orange Economy policy [Economía Naranja].
“The diversity of legal systems can be a good thing as it is an opportunity to explore new avenues and it motivates governments to improve regulation. Yet if a country is too lax in the way it devises its rules, a competitive advantage becomes a threat. A fragmented and inconsistent legal regime can spawn unwelcome developments – tax avoidance (“aggressive tax planning”) for one thing, and human rights abuses for another.”
Most serious infringements of working conditions [page 16}
“Those working in other people’s households are another risk group. Such actions have fallout for employees, for the state (which is robbed of taxes and insurance contributions), and for honest businesses, who cannot compete with such labour.”
Government covering note on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights National Action Plan
Ownership policy and social responsibility
“Companies with a controlling interest held by the State assess the human rights risks of their own operations and those of their subcontractor chains, reporting on them and their own tax procedures. In doing follow-up work on the operating principles of social responsibility, consideration should be given together with companies and other stakeholders on how models developed in ownership steering could also be applied in other company functions.”
The Agence Française de Développement (AFD) [page 28]
… Currently, the AFD does not apply Article 5 of Chapter III of the Act on France’s strategy for development and international solidarity, in particular the requirement to implement measures promoting the financial transparency of businesses involved in operations, country by country. Instead, the financial operators and private sector actors with which the AFD Group and PROPARCO work are encouraged to disclose information on their turnover, profits, employee numbers and taxes paid in each country they are based in. This measure, called “country-by-country reporting”, is already compulsory for European banks.
“Following the reform of procurement law in 2016, with which three new EU procurement directives were transposed into German law, the new Part IV of the Restraints of Competition Act lays particular emphasis on observance of the law, especially taxation, labour and social legislation (sections 97(3) and 128(1) of the Act).”
CHAPTER: 4 STRATEGES AND INTERVENTIONS 4.1 Strategies to achieve Key Objectives of the Three Pillars 4.1.1 Pillar 1: The State’s Duty to Protect Human Rights Strategy: 1.4 Enforce businesses’ compliance with Human Rights laws and mechanisms in the business Activities: Incorporate tax incentives into existing polices for businesses who are BHR compliant.
IV. Italian ongoing activities and future commitments
Administrative liability of companies
“The Ministry of Justice has recently set up a working group with the CNPDS (National Centre for Prevention and Social Defence Foundation), Confindustria and Assonime (…) In particular, the working group intends to propose solutions to remedy the following critical aspects of the current legislation:
– lack of legislative recognition about procedural collaboration from companies (e.g. probation as for US DPA and NPA), against the introduction of non-accountability of physical persons (e.g. in tax crimes and crimes against the public administration)” (p. 17)
Tax revenue is the most important, reliable and sustainable means of resourcing initiatives that contribute to the realisation of human rights such as health and education. Businesses are significant contributors to tax revenue. The Kenya Revenue Authority Act, 1995 provides that domestic revenue is derived from several sources including taxes, duties, fees, levies, charges, penalties, fines or other monies and are collected from individuals, private and public businesses by different entities at national and county level.
Tax justice and the regulation of financial behaviour of companies can no longer be treated in isolation from the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, outlined in the UNGPs and business commitments to support the SDGs. Indeed, the SDGs include specific targets on reducing illicit financial flows (IFFs), returning stolen assets, reduction of corruption, and strengthening domestic resource mobilisation. In this respect, Goal 16 on the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies includes specific targets on reducing illicit financial flows (target 16.4), corruption (target 16.5), Goal 17 on strengthening implementation and partnerships, target 17.1, provides for the strengthening of domestic resource mobilisation, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection.
Like in many jurisdictions, Kenya faces challenges concerning revenue mobilisation and the link to business activities, among them IFFs, tax avoidance and tax evasion by businesses. These practices result in reduction of the resources available for investment in essential social services fostering inequalities, undermining economic and social institutions and discouraging transparency in matters of public finances. The Kenya Government has enacted legislation to address these practices, including the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, the Bribery Act, 2016, and amendments in 2017 to the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2009 (POCAMLA).
The 2017 amendments to the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2009 establish the Financial Reporting Centre (FRC), an independent financial intelligence agency charged with combating money laundering and identifying proceeds of crime including tax evasion. The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2012 creates the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) whose mandate is to combat and prevent corruption and economic crimes set out in the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act. The Bribery Act, 2016 seeks to address the supply side of corruption by placing a duty on businesses to put in place appropriate measures relative to their size, scale and nature of operations towards the prevention of bribery and corruption, and also requires any person holding a position of authority in a business to report any knowledge or suspicion of bribery within twenty-four hours. Kenya is also party to international and regional initiatives on combating bribery and corruption.
Despite the above efforts, the NAP consultations identified several challenges that affect revenue transparency:
Corruption in the process of revenue collection and the management of public revenue. Stakeholders identified corruption in the business licensing process, the process of tax collection and public procurement attributed to both public and private sector actors.
Lack of disclosure of contracts particularly those that have significant economic and social consequences.
Lack of transparency in administration and management of revenues from the exploitation of natural resources including from mining and oil and gas activities.
The absence of legal beneficial ownership disclosure aids the veil of secrecy in determining who owns and controls business entities inhibiting law enforcement’s ability to ‘follow the money’.
CHAPTER THREE POLICY ACTIONS
3.1. Pillar 1: The State Duty to Protect
Policy Actions [Page 18]
The Government will:
xii. Review current trade and investment promotion agreements and bring them into compliance with the Constitution and international human rights standards to ensure that they are not used to facilitate illicit financial flows and tax evasion by businesses.
CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
ANNEX 1: SUMMARY OF POLICY ACTIONS [Page 24]
Strategic Objective
Policy Actions
Key Actors
Strategic Objective 1:
Enhance existing policy, legal, regulatory and administrative framework for ensuring respect of human rights by business through legal review and development of specific guidance for business
Review current trade and investment promotion agreements and bring them in consonance with the Constitution and the state’s international human rights obligations.
Ministry of Trade and Industry, KRA, Financial Reporting Centre (FRC)
3. Thematic Focus of the NAPBHR 2.3.5 Transparency and Accountability The government depends on taxation to deliver needed services to the population. Such services include, but are not limited to, providing quality education, healthcare, and affordable electricity, securing safe environments free of crime and other perils, and ensuring clean and safe drinking water supply. All service deliveries are made possible by the full tax revenue profile, which reflects all such monies ranging from levies and fines to penalties and duties as defined by the Revenue Code. When businesses evade or avoid taxes, they rob the state of the duty to provide critical services that, as noted here, are linked to human rights. By extension, businesses avoiding and evading tax payments violate the law and undermine the furtherance of the safe environment on which everyone depends, and on which businesses’ very own operations and sustenance depend. The need for transparency and accountability in tax payments by businesses, and the state’s harnessing and deploying taxes, are rooted in numerous international and domestic legal instruments. The ICCPR, UDHR, ICSECR, and the ACHPR’s, generally identify objectives obligating member states to strengthen resource mobilization, reduce corruption and strengthen revenue collection […].
Objective 1: ensuring State’s duty to protect, defend and respect human rights
E. Measures related to international obligations [page 4]
2. “Accession to the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. The aim is to create conditions for the ratification of the Convention following Lithuania’s accession to the OECD. To successfully accede to this Convention, criminal legislation must contain a special rule providing for the liability of natural and legal persons for the bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions. The legislation must also prohibit tax deductions from money obtained as bribes, irrespective of this money being accounted for in accordance with applicable legal requirements.”
Action: Assess the implementation of the 15% global minimum tax (GMT) as recommended under Pillar 2 of the OECD Two-Pillar Solution.
Output Indicator(s):
Evidence, insights and recommendations are developed on the state of corporate compliance with the 15% GMT regulation.
Collaborative Partner(s): MOF; Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia (IRBM)
No.: G1.24
Action: Assess the implementation of the Tax Corporate Governance Framework (TCGF).
Output Indicator(s):
Evidence, insights and MOF; IRBM recommendations are developed on implementation gaps related to the TCGF and the promotion of good tax governance practices
Collaborative Partner(s): MOF; IRBM
THEMATIC PRIORITY 3: ENVIRONMENT
UNGP PILLLAR 1
ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS GOVERNANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
No.: E1.6
Action: Introduce and apply the polluter pays principle (PPP) P)8 as as an effective deterrent for business misconduct.
Output Indicator(s):
Regulatory instruments and enforcement measures are implemented that clearly apply the PPP, including imposing substantial fines, environmental taxes, or remediation orders on polluting businesses.
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 Tax.
“Like other state-owned companies, Swedfund International AB (Swedfund) and the Swedish Export Credit Corporation (SEK) are required to comply with the government state ownership policy for CSR, as described above. Moreover, Swedfund and SEK have social mandates specially adopted by the Riksdag. Swedfund is required to ensure that its investments comply with international standards and CSR principles, within clear and sound corporate structures that do not contribute to tax evasion, money laundering or terrorist financing. SEK is required to take account of conditions such as the environment, corruption, human rights and working conditions in its credit assessments”
Annex: Measures planned [page 27]
Regulations and legislation
“An inquiry has presented further proposals for modern, effective and legally certain administrative proceedings. The continued development of administrative proceedings and specialisation for tax cases (Swedish Government Official Reports 2014:76) was presented in December 2014 and has been circulated for comment.”
3 The core content of the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights
3.1 Action plan on labour
3.1.1 Overall situation
For the promotion of employment of the elderly, the Ministry of Labour has prepared legislation to issue an hourly minimum wage for elderly employees, and include plans to open a service centre for employment for the elderly. Tax incentives will be issued to encourage private sector agencies to hire elderly workers aged 60 years and over. Starting from the accounting period beginning on or after 1 January 2016 onwards, the private sector can file in their corporate income taxes an exemption of up to 100 percent of the money paid to senior employees in accordance with the Royal Decree on the Revenue Code regarding Tax Exemption (No. 639) 2017, which is in effect from 3 March 2017, and the Notification of the Director-General of the Revenue Department on Income Tax (No. 290) dated 14 March 2017. This measure is meant to support the elderly to have an opportunity to continue working and have sufficient post-retirement income, reducing social inequality and alleviating the government welfare budget burden on a long-term basis – as Thailand will enter the Aged Society in 2021.
3.1.3 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
10.
Children of migrant workers
Encouraging establishments to organize childcare centres at work by registering as child service centres in the workplace with the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security. Such establishments will receive tax deductions and children of employees and workers are taken care of with proper development.
– Ministry of Social Development and Human Security
– Ministry of Labour
2019–2022
Number of establishments registered as a child service centre in the workplace
– National Strategy for Human Capital Development and Strengthening
– SDG 8 and 11
– UNGPs Articles 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7
3.2 Action plan for community, land, natural resources and the environment
3.2.1 Overview of the situation
The government has tried to solve problems by raising the level of competitiveness, promoting research and development, restructuring of economic and social structures such as tax structure (inheritance tax and land tax), setting up the rules of society to be secure and fair, promoting equality and opportunity to access public resources and services, promoting good governance, and eliminating corruption and patronage systems while in the short-term, implementing measures to help farmers and low-income people affected by the economy and disasters.
4. The promotion of implementation of the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights and mechanisms for monitoring, follow-up and evaluation of the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights
4.2 Examples of long-term activities (4 years)
10. Consider a study incentive for business such as tax incentives and other benefits as a way to encourage the business sector/state
Uganda has been consistently attracting the highest foreign direct investment (FDI) in East Africa by attracting between $250 – 300 million in FDI annually between 2010 and 2016 – largely due to its stable and consistent macro-economic policies including liberalization of business environment and tax incentives to investors in selected sectors like manufacturing, oil and gas and Energy (URA, 2019; a Guide on Tax Incentives/Exemptions Available to the Uganda Investors).
Stakeholders, particularly national business owners’ and private providers, noted that tax exemptions were not provided transparently and they were provided to large or foreign companies, making the State to lose needed revenue and causing unfair competition between those who receive and those who do not. The participants also noted that if tax exemptions/ tax incentives are to be granted, the business owners should demonstrate that the exemptions/ tax incentives are justified and their implementation will ensure deliberate, concrete and targeted steps to guarantee protection and fulfilment of human rights, particularly through employment creation and delivery of social services thus improving lives of the Ugandans. In addition, the exemptions should be monitored, their social benefits and the human rights compliance periodically assessed. The assessments should be informed by broad public participation, especially of individuals that are directly affected.
Revenue transparency particularly revenue in the extractives sector has become an increasing concern to the public. There has been a wider call for resources justice through arrangements such as Publish What You Pay (PWYP), the Natural Resources Charter, Extractives Industries transparency Initiative among others. The NAP consultations enlisted several challenges that affect revenue transparency. There is an inflow of investors operating in the districts but without licenses from the district authorities. This was typically raised in Karamoja region where many business owners in the mining sector emerge with mining licenses purportedly from Kampala and do not contribute any taxes to the local government authorities. This has led to reduction in local revenue collection as well as affected social service delivery to the communities.
Corruption is one of the major challenges leading to violation of human rights in business operations in Uganda. Many business operators reported corruption in procurement, acquisition of licenses and tax collection. Imprudent utilization of tax and other resources through corruption undermines positive outcomes of businesses in Uganda. This weakens the economic and social efforts of the government to provide services and even further discourages transparency in matters of business operations.
CHAPTER FIVE: INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
5.1 Ministry Of Gender, Labour and Social Development
(…)
viii. Mobilize resources for implementation of the action plan.
5.4 Business entities
(…)
vii. Pay taxes to the government.
5.5 Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development
(…)
ii. Enact appropriate tax regimes.
5.9 Local Governments
(…)
x. Mobilize resources to implement the action plan.
The UK 2016 NAP mentions tax in the section devoted to Myanmar Centre For Responsible Business in Burma [page 19], where it points to the tax evasion as being one of the important issues in the context of responsible business conduct:
“The media has turned to MCRB for comments on a range of responsible business issues which MCRB is using to shape debates on issues as diverse as tax evasion and environmental impacts, and to highlight international standards and key issues in Myanmar.”
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)
Kenya (2020-2025)
Liberia (2024 - 2028)
Lithuania (2015-open)
Luxembourg (2020-2022)
Malaysia (2025-2030)
Mongolia (2023-2027)
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)
