The idea that businesses have obligations corresponding to human rights is relatively new，still controversial，and involves some revision of the thinking that is expressed in the central instruments of international human rights law. Despite all of that，might the idea be defensible？I shall claim that it is. I shall claim that businesses are in a position to protect and promote human rights in places where human rights are routinely violated，and that where the violations are taking place close to a business’s operations，and are known to be violations of the most basic rights，some sort of intervention is obligatory. I shall also claim that when businesses do intervene，they do not turn into non-businesses，forsaking commercial purposes and becoming full time warriors in a moral crusade. Speaking up against forced labour or brutality on the part of the local military is not incompatible with manufacturing or with carrying out a construction contract. On the other hand，I concede that that when businesses do promote or protect human rights，they sometimes fill a vacancy wrongly left by governments，and often by electorates. This raises the question of whether businesses have a role in promoting human rights only because states，sometimes under pressure of their citizens，are not fulfilling their undoubted obligations. My answer to this tricky question is going to be that businesses can and ought to play a role anyway，but I fear that the accompanying argument will be less than conclusive.