A2

Embedding Respect for Human Rights

Overarching question

To describe the ways in which the reporting company sees respect for human rights as relevant to its core business and how it is reflected in the ways the company thinks about and carries out its activities and business relationships.

Companies have different business models, governance structures, cultures and systems and will, therefore, use different approaches when considering how to introduce a new principle or value into how they operate.

There are a number of supporting questions in this section that address some specific aspects of embedding respect for human rights that are relevant to all companies. In response to this overarching question, the reporting company can focus on high-level evidence and indicators of the emphasis it places on respect for human rights across its activities and business relationships.

The role of the Board is relevant for addressing this question and a number of the supporting questions. The term ‘Board’ is used to designate the highest-level governing authority of the business. Where this is not the Board, the reporting company should make this clear and answer the questions with reference to whatever other authority has this governance role.

Relevant information for the company could include:

  • Whether or not the company’s commitment to respect human rights is reflected in the company’s by-laws or other governance documents;

  • How the company’s business model reflects, or has been adapted to enable, respect for human rights;

  • How any risks to human rights associated with the business model (e.g., offering lowest-cost products) are understood among the senior leadership and the Board;

  • How the company views the links between human rights and related governance issues such as corruption, taxation, climate change, etc.;
  • Whether or not a Board member or Board committee is tasked with addressing one or more areas of respect for human rights;

  • Inclusion of human rights in internal risk assessment;

  • Public statements by the top leadership regarding how the company views respect for human rights;

  • Linkage of performance incentives (e.g., bonuses) for top management to one or more aspects of respect for human rights;

  • Leadership within the company’s industry on one or more human rights issues (e.g., through an industry association or multi-stakeholder initiative);

  • Allocation of, or substantial increases in, resources for addressing human rights issues;

  • Examples of lobbying in favour of improved regulations or improved implementation of regulations to protect human rights in areas relevant for the company’s operations, products or services (e.g., improved labour rights protections, land title recognition for communities, strengthened community consultation laws or practices);

  • Any forward-looking high-level priorities or strategies to further embed respect for human rights within the business.

The robustness of the reporting company’s response to this question will be improved to the extent that it is able to answer the supporting questions that follow.

UN Guiding Principle 11 provides that:

“Business enterprises should respect human rights. This means that they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved.”

The commentary to UN Guiding Principle 11 states that:

“The responsibility to respect human rights is a global standard of expected conduct for all business enterprises wherever they operate. It exists independently of States’ abilities and/or willingness to fulfil their own human rights obligations, and does not diminish those obligations. And it exists over and above compliance with national laws and regulations protecting human rights.

Addressing adverse human rights impacts requires taking adequate measures for their prevention, mitigation and, where appropriate, remediation. Business enterprises may undertake other commitments or activities to support and promote human rights, which may contribute to the enjoyment of rights. But this does not offset a failure to respect human rights throughout their operations.

Business enterprises should not undermine States’ abilities to meet their own human rights obligations, including by actions that might weaken the integrity of judicial processes.”

UN Guiding Principle 13 provides that:

“The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business enterprises:

(a) Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur;

(b) Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts.”

The commentary to UN Guiding Principle 13 states that:

“Business enterprises may be involved with adverse human rights impacts either through their own activities or as a result of their business relationships with other parties. Guiding Principle 19 elaborates further on the implications for how business enterprises should address these situations. For the purpose of these Guiding Principles a business enterprise’s ‘activities’ are understood to include both actions and omissions; and its ‘business relationships’ are understood to include relationships with business partners, entities in its value chain, and any other non-State or State entity directly linked to its business operations, products or services.”

The commentary to UN Guiding Principles 16 states that:

“…Just as States should work towards policy coherence, so business enterprises need to strive for coherence between their responsibility to respect human rights and policies and procedures that govern their wider business activities and relationships. This should include, for example, policies and procedures that set financial and other performance incentives for personnel; procurement practices; and lobbying activities where human rights are at stake.

Through these and any other appropriate means, the policy statement should be embedded from the top of the business enterprise through all its functions, which otherwise may act without awareness or regard for human rights.”

The commentary to UN Guiding Principle 19 states that:

“The horizontal integration across the business enterprise of specific findings from assessing human rights impacts can only be effective if its human rights policy commitment has been embedded into all relevant business functions. This is required to ensure that the assessment findings are properly understood, given due weight, and acted upon.”

These references are intended to help users identify which provisions from other initiatives would be relevant as part of the answer to this question. They are not a substitute for the guidance above.
See the cross-references to other initiatives page for a key to the initiatives referenced.
Initiative Reference point
CHRB

A. Governance and Policy Commitments: A.2.1
B. Embedding Respect and Human Rights Due Diligence: B.1.1, B.1.2
*D. Performance: Company Human Rights Practices: D.2.2, D.3.2
E. Performance: Responses to Serious Allegations: E.1.2

*Section D of the CHRB refers to sector-specific key human rights risks identified by the CHRB.

DJSI

FTSE ESG

GNI

GRI

ICMM

Where specifically related to human rights issues:
Principle 2: Key Management Actions Required (non-mandatory examples from ICMM’s Assurance Procedure):
– Integrate sustainable development principles into company policies and practices.
– Plan, design, operate and close operations in a manner that enhances sustainable development.

IR

Content Element 4B: Governance
Content Element 4C: Business model

KTC

1.2 Supply Chain Standard (element 3: approved by senior executive)

1.3 Management and Accountability

3.1 Purchasing Practices

3.2 Supplier Selection

7.2 Remedy Programs

OECD

OECD-1, OECD-3, OECD-4, OECD-5

UNGC

VPSHR

Supporting questions

To describe where, within the company, those individuals with daily responsibility for human rights are located and their reporting lines to more senior decision-making levels, and to explain how this structure helps the company make respect for human rights part of how it conducts business.

This question is distinct from question C4.1, which looks at how those people in different parts of the company whose decisions and actions can affect human rights are involved in managing them. It is also distinct from question A1.1 where the company can report on the level within the company at which the public commitment to respect human rights was signed off. In this question, the focus is on day-to-day responsibility and accountability from the operational level up through senior management.

Companies can organize overall responsibility for human rights issues in a number of different ways, depending on a range of considerations. There may be more than one point of responsibility, for example, human resources for human rights issues related to employees and contract workers, and a different function in relation to external stakeholders, such as social compliance or community relations. Certain functions may have a particular kind of responsibility, for example, ethics, compliance or internal audit. In larger companies, there may be different leads in different business units, operating sites, or regional or country offices, as well as at the corporate level. There will typically be reporting lines between the individual(s) with operational responsibility and a more senior position with overall accountability for performance (that is, the most senior position with explicit decision-making responsibility). It will be particularly helpful to explain how the structure chosen by the reporting company fits its particular systems and culture.

Relevant information for the company could include:

  • Which staff position or business function has day-to-day responsibility for human rights within the company (e.g., corporate responsibility and sustainability, legal, ethics and compliance, external affairs, internal audit, and/or a specific position within the function);
  • Specific responsibilities of this staff position or business function for daily management of human rights;
  • The most senior level of oversight and accountability for human rights within the company (if different from the position with day-to-day responsibility);
  • The rationale for the company’s choice of how it organizes the responsibility for human rights;
  • Any evidence that this choice of how to organize the responsibility assists the company in making respect for human rights part of how it conducts business on a day-to-day basis.

UN Guiding Principle 19 provides that:

“In order to prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts, business enterprises should integrate the findings from their impact assessments across relevant internal functions and processes, and take appropriate action.

(a) Effective integration requires that:

i. Responsibility for addressing such impacts is assigned to the appropriate level and function within the business enterprise;

ii. Internal decision-making, budget allocations and oversight processes enable effective responses to such impacts.”

The commentary to UN Guiding Principle 19 states that:

“The horizontal integration across the business enterprise of specific findings from assessing human rights impacts can only be effective if its human rights policy commitment has been embedded into all relevant business functions. This is required to ensure that the assessment findings are properly understood, given due weight, and acted upon.”

These references are intended to help users identify which provisions from other initiatives would be relevant as part of the answer to this question. They are not a substitute for the guidance above.
See the cross-references to other initiatives page for a key to acronyms.
Initiative Reference point
CHRB

B. Embedding Respect and Human Rights Due Diligence: B.1.1

DJSI

Where human rights are identified as part of supply chain management processes:
Criterion: Supply Chain Management
Question: ESG Integration in SCM Strategy – Integration of ESG Factors into Supplier Selection
Question: ESG Integration in SCM Strategy: Responsibilities

FTSE ESG

In relation to human rights issues:
Risk Management: Strategy & Practice
– Committee or senior executive responsible for risk

GNI

Implementation Guidelines: 2. Responsible Company Decision Making – Integration into Business Operations: Structure

GRI

G4-DMAb (Responsibilities, Resources)

ICMM

IR

KTC

1.3 Management and Accountability

OECD

OECD-1B

UNGC

VPSHR

To provide the reader with a sense of when, why and in what ways the most senior levels of the company’s management and governance structures would become involved in addressing human rights-related issues and, therefore, how those individuals see their role in supporting respect for human rights within the company.

Not all human rights issues can be, or need to be, discussed at the most senior levels of the company. This question provides the opportunity for the reporting company to explain its general approach and/or specific criteria for escalating human rights issues within the company.

The term ‘Board’ is used to designate the highest-level governing authority of the business. Where this is not the Board, the reporting company should make this clear and answer the questions with reference to whatever other authority has this governance role.

There may be a number of issues that are discussed at the senior management and Board levels that are not seen as human rights issues per se, but which have the potential to impact human rights, for instance, discussions of supply chain strategy and the company’s business approach to emerging markets. In other discussions, it will be more directly apparent that a human rights issue is being discussed, for instance, in the case of a grievance lodged by a neighboring community in a country of operation, or discussion of how to respect human rights in the case of a national law that itself breaches human rights standards (e.g., non-discrimination against women or freedom of association).

This question is distinct from question C4.2, which focuses on the company’s salient human rights issues and asks how any tensions between the prevention of impacts and other business objectives are addressed. Question A2.2 is a more general question for the company to describe and illustrate when and how senior management and/or the Board take a role in addressing any human rights issues, whether due to tensions with other business objectives or for other reasons.

Relevant information for the company’s answer could include:

  • Processes, indicators and/or criteria that the company uses to determine which issues are discussed by senior management or the Board;
  • Examples of specific human rights issues discussed and/or examples of trends in types of human rights issues discussed at the senior management and Board levels during the reporting period;
  • Information on whether any of the salient human rights risks or additional severe impacts identified in Part B were discussed at the senior management or Board level during the reporting period;
  • Any principles or systems that dictate when and how senior management and/or the Board address dilemmas arising from tensions between respect for human rights and other business interests;
  • Any examples of how a particular tension between respect for human rights and other business considerations was addressed by senior management and/or the Board during the reporting period.

UN Guiding Principle 19 provides that:

“In order to prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts, business enterprises should integrate the findings from their impact assessments across relevant internal functions and processes, and take appropriate action. […]

(b) Effective integration requires that:

i. Responsibility for addressing such impacts is assigned to the appropriate level and function within the business enterprise;

ii. Internal decision-making, budget allocations and oversight processes enable effective responses to such impacts.”

The commentary to UN Guiding Principle 19 states that:

“The horizontal integration across the business enterprise of specific findings from assessing human rights impacts can only be effective if its human rights policy commitment has been embedded into all relevant business functions. This is required to ensure that the assessment findings are properly understood, given due weight, and acted upon.”

These references are intended to help users identify which provisions from other initiatives would be relevant as part of the answer to this question. They are not a substitute for the guidance above.
See the cross-references to other initiatives page for a key to acronyms.
Initiative Reference point
CHRB

A. Governance and Policy Commitments: A.2.2

DJSI

In DJSI industry questionnaires there are questions related to how specific human rights issues are addressed at the Board level.

FTSE ESG

In relation to human rights issues:
Risk Management: Strategy & Practice
– Board oversight over Code and risk management

Risk Management: Quantitative, Sector Specific and Performance
– Legal and compliance leads have Board access

Health & Safety: Strategy & Practice
– Board oversight and presence of H&S Committee

GNI

Implementation Guidelines: 2. Responsible Company Decision Making – Board Review, Oversight and Leadership

GRI

ICMM

IR

KTC

1.3 Management and Accountability

OECD

OECD-1B, OECD-3A, OECD-3C

UNGC

In relation to human rights issues: Criterion 19, Criterion 20

VPSHR

To explain how the reporting company’s high-level public commitment is translated into terms that are understandable for those working for the company and how they are equipped and motivated to implement the commitment in their daily work.

This question is distinct from question A1.3, which addresses the dissemination of the company’s public policy commitment to those for whom it is relevant, including people working for the company who have a role to play in its implementation. This question moves beyond their awareness of the policy’s existence to consider how they are enabled to understand its implications for their own decisions and actions. These implications will be different for those working in different functions or business units, for example in human resources, finance or accounting, procurement, legal or particular operational divisions.

Relevant information for the company’s answer could include:

  • The means through which the company helps its workforce understand how their own decisions and actions can support (or hinder) implementation of the public policy commitment to respect human rights (e.g., internal policies, guidance documents, training, e-learning, human rights champions);
  • Any examples of how these efforts are tailored to particular roles, functions or business units within the company;
  • Any way in which the company seeks to share lessons learned about addressing actual impacts about reducing human rights risks and addressing actual impacts (e.g., case studies on the company’s intranet, videos highlighting lessons learned, peer sharing, cross-functional meetings);
  • Any incentives for the company’s workforce, including senior management, to ensure they act with respect for human rights (e.g., internal recognition, performance metrics, performance evaluation, linking evaluation to remuneration and promotion opportunities);
  • Any relevant ‘speak-up’ procedures or whistle-blowing mechanism to enable and/or encourage individuals to raise concerns internally regarding respect for human rights;
  • How any tensions with other incentives driving the workforce are managed, (e.g., time pressures, cost pressures, other internal metrics that drive individual performance and which may, at times, be at odds with measures to respect human rights).

UN Guiding Principle 19 provides that:

“In order to prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts, business enterprises should integrate the findings from their impact assessments across relevant internal functions and processes, and take appropriate action.

(a) Effective integration requires that:

iii. Responsibility for addressing such impacts is assigned to the appropriate level and function within the business enterprise;

iv. Internal decision-making, budget allocations and oversight processes enable effective responses to such impacts.”

The commentary to UN Guiding Principle 19 states that:

“The horizontal integration across the business enterprise of specific findings from assessing human rights impacts can only be effective if its human rights policy commitment has been embedded into all relevant business functions. This is required to ensure that the assessment findings are properly understood, given due weight, and acted upon.”

The commentary to UN Guiding Principle 16 states that:

“Internal communication of the statement and of related policies and procedures should make clear what the lines and systems of accountability will be, and should be supported by any necessary training for personnel in relevant business functions.

Just as States should work towards policy coherence, so business enterprises need to strive for coherence between their responsibility to respect human rights and policies and procedures that govern their wider business activities and relationships. This should include, for example, policies and procedures that set financial and other performance incentives for personnel; procurement practices; and lobbying activities where human rights are at stake.

Through these and any other appropriate means, the policy statement should be embedded from the top of the business enterprise through all its functions, which otherwise may act without awareness or regard for human rights.”

These references are intended to help users identify which provisions from other initiatives would be relevant as part of the answer to this question. They are not a substitute for the guidance above.
See the cross-references to other initiatives page for a key to acronyms.
Initiative Reference point
CHRB

A. Governance and Policy Commitments: A.2.3
B. Embedding Respect and Human Rights Due Diligence: B.1.3

DJSI

Where human rights are specifically identified in relevant policies:
Criterion: Codes of Conduct/Compliance/Corruption & Bribery
Question: Codes of Conduct: Systems/Procedures
Question: Codes of Conduct/Anti-Corruption & Bribery: Business Relationships

Where human rights are specifically identified as part of supply chain management processes:
Criterion: Supply Chain Management Criterion
Question: ESG Integration in SCM Strategy: Incentives for Staff

FTSE ESG

In relation to human rights issues:
Social Supply Chain: Strategy & Practice
– Policy integrated into buyer training and purchasing

Customer Responsibility: Strategy & Practice
– Guidelines and training

Customer Responsibility: Quantitative, Sector Specific and Performance
– Responsible selling for client-facing sales staff

GNI

Implementation Guidelines: 2. Responsible Company Decision Marking – Integration into Business Operations

GRI

ICMM

Where specifically related to human rights issues:
Principle 2: Key Management Actions Required (non-mandatory examples from ICMM’s Assurance Procedure):
– Provide sustainable development training to ensure adequate competency at all levels among our own employees and those of contractors.

Principle 5: Key Management Actions Required (non-mandatory examples from ICMM’s Assurance Procedure):
– Provide all employees with health and safety training, and require employees of contractors to have undergone such training.

IR

KTC

1.4 Training (element 1: internal training) 5.1 Communication of Policies

OECD

OECD-1B

UNGC

Criterion 3 and specifically:
– Statement of policy stipulating human rights expectations of personnel, business partners and other parties directly linked to operations, products or services (BRE 1)

Criterion 4: and specifically:
– Internal awareness-raising and training on human rights for management and employees

Criterion 7 and specifically:
– Internal awareness-raising and training on human rights for management and employees

VPSHR

To explain how the reporting company conveys to business partners, suppliers, customers and others with which it has business relationships the particular relevance of its public human rights commitment, so as to engage their interest and motivate them to support its implementation through their own decisions and actions.

This question relates to any third party with which the company has a business relationship, including other companies, governments or government agencies, and both direct and indirect relationships (for example, at different tiers of its upstream and downstream value chain).

This question addresses both how these third parties are made aware of the company’s own commitment to respect human rights and how they are supported or incentivized to act in accordance with that commitment.

Relevant information for the company’s answer could include:

  • The way in which human rights considerations inform company decisions to enter into or terminate a business relationship;
  • The means through which the company conveys to third parties with which it has business relationships the intent and content of its commitment to respect human rights (e.g., a code of conduct, terms of a contract, capacity-building work);
  • What specific aims or expectations the company has of those it works with directly or indirectly with regard to the implementation of its commitment to respect human rights;
  • Any processes through which the company helps enable relevant third parties to act with respect for human rights (e.g., capacity-building, peer sharing, collaborative initiatives, technical support);
  • Any way in which the company ensures it does not hinder other companies from respecting human rights (e.g., through intentional or unintentional pressure or incentives to overlook human rights issues);
  • Any way in which the company ensures it does not hinder governments or other State entities from protecting human rights (e.g., through pressure in the negotiation of contract terms, lobbying against regulations aimed at improving human rights protections);
  • Any incentives through which the company motivates business partners to act with respect for human rights (e.g., price premiums, increased orders or longer contracts with suppliers, repeat business, public recognition).

UN Guiding Principle 13 provides that:

“The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business enterprises:

(a) Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur;

(b) Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts.”

The commentary to UN Guiding Principle 13 states that:

“Business enterprises may be involved with adverse human rights impacts either through their own activities or as a result of their business relationships with other parties. Guiding Principle 19 elaborates further on the implications for how business enterprises should address these situations. For the purpose of these Guiding Principles a business enterprise’s “activities” are understood to include both actions and omissions; and its “business relationships” are understood to include relationships with business partners, entities in its value chain, and any other non-State or State entity directly linked to its business operations, products or services.”

The commentary to UN Guiding Principle 16 states that:

“The statement of commitment should be publicly available. It should be communicated actively to entities with which the enterprise has contractual relationships; others directly linked to its operations, which may include State security forces; investors; and, in the case of operations with significant human rights risks, to the potentially affected stakeholders.”

These references are intended to help users identify which provisions from other initiatives would be relevant as part of the answer to this question. They are not a substitute for the guidance above.
See the cross-references to other initiatives page for a key to acronyms.
Initiative Reference point
CHRB

B. Embedding Respect and Human Rights Due Diligence: B.1.4.b, B.1.5, B.1.7
*D. Performance: Company Human Rights Practices: D.2.1, D.2.2, D.2.4.a, D.2.4.b, D.2.5, , D.2.6, D.2.7.b, D.2.8, D.2.9.b, D.3.1.b, D.3.2, D.3.4.b, D.3.5.b, D.3.6.b, D.3.6.d, D.3.7.b, D.3.8.b, D.3.9.b, D.3.10.b

*Section D of the CHRB refers to sector-specific key human rights risks identified by the CHRB.

DJSI

Criterion: Social Reporting
Question: Coverage

Where human rights are specifically identified in any of the following:
Criterion: Codes of Conduct/Compliance/Corruption & Bribery
Question: Codes of Conduct/Anti-Corruption & Bribery: Business Relationships

Criterion: Risk & Crisis Management
Question: Risk Management Measures: Standard/Policy Code of Conduct for suppliers (and) Contract Clauses

Criterion: Supply Chain Management
Question: ESG Integration in SCM Strategy: Integration of ESG Factors into Supplier Selection

FTSE ESG

In relation to human rights issues:
Health & Safety: Strategy & Practice
– Policy addresses health & safety and contractors

Customer Responsibility: Strategy and Practice
– Vulnerable groups or their issues recognised

Social Supply Chain: Strategy & Practice
– Policy translated and communicated
– Policy integrated into buyer training and purchasing
– Capacity building in suppliers

GNI

Implementation Guidelines: 2. Responsible Company Decision Making – Partners, Suppliers and Distributors

GRI

G4-DMAb (Investment Aspect – specific DMA Guidance for HR1)

ICMM

Where specifically related to human rights issues:
Principle 2: Key Management Actions Required (non-mandatory examples from ICMM’s Assurance Procedure):
– Encourage customers, business partners and suppliers of goods and services to adopt principles and practices that are comparable to our own.

IR

KTC

1.2 Supply Chain Standards

1.4 Training (element 2: supplier training)

3.1 Purchasing Practices

3.2 Supplier Selection

3.3 Integration into Supplier Contracts

3.4 Cascading Standards through the Supply Chain

6.1 Auditing Process

7.1 Corrective Action Plans

OECD

OECD-1A,C,D and E, OECD – 3B,C and D, OECD-4

UNGC

Criterion 3 and specifically:
– Statement of policy publicly available and communicated internally and externally to all personnel, business partners and other relevant parties (BRE 1 + BRE 5 + ARE 1 + ARE 5)

Criterion 6 and specifically:
– Inclusion of reference to the principles contained in the relevant international labour standards in contracts with suppliers and other relevant business partners

VPSHR

To explain whether experiences or other insights that the reporting company has gained during the reporting period have led to improvements in the management of human rights impacts that should help the company better to meet its responsibility to respect human rights over time.

Meeting the responsibility to respect human rights is typically an ongoing challenge requiring continuous improvement based on learning. This requires a dynamic approach to the management of human rights risks that readers will be looking to see reflected in the reporting company’s disclosure. Demonstrating that lessons are being learned and implemented is a key way of showing that the company is progressing in its efforts and, therefore, meeting the expectations of its various stakeholders.

Lessons learned might come from the reporting company’s own activities, including in relation to its value chain, from feedback received from affected or potentially affected stakeholders, the experience of peers in the industry, or from expert reports or informal feedback about emerging challenges or successful innovations. The results of these lessons might include changes made (or planned) to any of the processes described in response to other questions in this Framework. This question offers an opportunity to describe forward-looking plans or targets for continued improvement in the next reporting period or beyond.

Relevant information for the company’s answer could include:

  • Specific experiences or insights that have changed the company’s approach to managing one or more human rights impacts;
  • Changes made or planned to a policy, process or practice in order to better manage one or more human rights impacts.

UN Guiding Principle 20 provides that:

“In order to verify whether adverse human rights impacts are being addressed, business enterprises should track the effectiveness of their response. Tracking should:

(a) Be based on appropriate qualitative and quantitative indicators;

(b) Draw on feedback from both internal and external sources, including affected stakeholders.”

The commentary to UN Guiding Principle 20 states that:

“Tracking is necessary in order for a business enterprise to know if its human rights policies are being implemented optimally, whether it has responded effectively to the identified human rights impacts, and to drive continuous improvement.

Business enterprises should make particular efforts to track the effectiveness of their responses to impacts on individuals from groups or populations that may be at heightened risk of vulnerability or marginalization.

Tracking should be integrated into relevant internal reporting processes. Business enterprises might employ tools they already use in relation to other issues. This could include performance contracts and reviews as well as surveys and audits, using gender-disaggregated data where relevant. Operational-level grievance mechanisms can also provide important feedback on the effectiveness of the business enterprise’s human rights due diligence from those directly affected (see Principle 29).”

These references are intended to help users identify which provisions from other initiatives would be relevant as part of the answer to this question. They are not a substitute for the guidance above.
See the cross-references to other initiatives page for a key to acronyms.
Initiative Reference point
CHRB

DJSI

FTSE ESG

GNI

GRI

ICMM

IR

KTC

OECD

OECD-3B

UNGC

VPSHR