To enable the reader of the company’s reporting to understand the basic processes through which the company identified the salient human rights issues on which it is reporting, and the key factors that informed that process.

Guidance to Section B1 described the key criteria that should guide the process of identifying the company’s salient human rights issues. The reporting company should describe how those criteria have informed its identification of those salient issues in its response to this section.

It will also be important to convey any way in which inputs from stakeholders have informed the company’s understanding of its salient human rights issues. In doing so, information about inputs from potentially affected stakeholders will be particularly relevant since their perspectives can raise important insights and understanding of potential impacts that may not otherwise be apparent to the company.

Engaging with potentially affected stakeholders usually happens at the local level and may be a part of the company’s human rights due diligence or other ongoing activities. For larger companies, this can mean different engagement processes with different stakeholders in different business units or country operations. Companies – particularly smaller companies – that cannot so easily engage with affected stakeholders directly, may find reasonable alternatives such as consulting a variety of credible, independent expert resources, through which they can gain insight into the likely or typical perspectives of those who may be impacted.

It can also be valuable for reporting companies to involve expert stakeholders in the the overarching assessment of their salient issues. These are stakeholders with a general understanding of human rights risks within the company’s industry or areas of operation. They can include members of the company’s own workforce as well as external experts. Consultations with these stakeholders can help ensure that the company’s conclusions as to which human rights risks are salient for its business are, and are perceived as, well founded.

For more on the different kinds of stakeholders that are particularly relevant to companies’ human rights performance, see the supporting guidance to question C2.

Essential information includes:

• Key aspects of the process through which the company arrived at the stated list of salient human rights issues on which the remainder of its reporting will focus;

• The key factors that informed the company’s assessment of salient human rights issues, with particular attention to the factors of severity and likelihood (see B1);

• If and how inputs from stakeholders were taken into account in the identification of the salient human right issues, in particular, inputs from potentially affected stakeholders;

• Any role of senior management and the Board in identifying and/or agreeing on the salient human right issues.

Additional relevant information for the company’s answer could include:

• Any developments in the process to identify salient human right issues since the last reporting period;

• Any reasons for changes in the salient human right issues being reported since the last reporting period;

• If it is likely that readers may reasonably expect certain other issues to be included under the company’s salient human right issues, the reason why they are not.

UN Guiding Principle 18 provides that:

“In order to gauge human rights risks, business enterprises should identify and assess any actual or potential adverse human rights impacts with which they may be involved either through their own activities or as a result of their business relationships. This process should:

(a) Draw on internal and/or independent external human rights expertise;

(b) Involve meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups and other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate to the size of the business enterprise and the nature and context of the operation.”

The commentary to UN Guiding Principle 18 states that:

“To enable business enterprises to assess their human rights impacts accurately, they should seek to understand the concerns of potentially affected stakeholders by consulting them directly in a manner that takes into account language and other potential barriers to effective engagement. In situations where such consultation is not possible, business enterprises should consider reasonable alternatives such as consulting credible, independent expert resources, including human rights defenders and others from civil society.”

Please note:

1. Assurance provided at the higher tiers should include indicators from lower tiers.
2. These indicators are supported by further notes in the Microsoft Excel version of the indicators. For all support materials on assurance of human rights performance and reporting, please see our website section on assurance.

TIER ONE ASSURANCE

• There is evidence that the company understands salient human rights issues to be those human rights at risk of the most severe negative impact through its activities and business relationships.
• There is evidence that the company understands the ‘severity’ of human rights impacts to comprise:
  • how grave the impact would be
  • how widespread the impact would be
  • how hard it would be to put right the resulting harm
• There is evidence that the company has conducted a clear and deliberate process to identify its salient human rights issues, or has drawn on a range of relevant existing processes to do so.
• There is evidence that the company has looked both at its own operations and at its value chain to identify its salient human rights issues.
• There is evidence that the company has drawn on internal expertise and experience from across the company, and where appropriate on external expertise, to identify its salient human rights issues.
• There is evidence that the company’s process to identify its salient human rights issues has considered the various groups of stakeholders that could be impacted.
• There is evidence that the company has tested its conclusions regarding its salient human rights issues with key external stakeholders, particularly those who have knowledge of both the business or industry and human rights.
• There is evidence that senior management and the Board signed off on the selection of the salient human rights issues after appropriate consideration of relevant issues.

TIER TWO ASSURANCE

• There is evidence that the company’s process to identify its salient human rights issues has taken into account the perspectives of stakeholders who may be impacted, drawing on insights gained from engagement with those stakeholders, their legitimate representatives and/or others who have expert knowledge of their perspectives.
• There is evidence that the company’s process to identify its salient human rights issues has looked at both severe impacts on human rights that it could cause or contribute to, and also severe impacts that may be linked to its operations, products or services without contribution on its part.
• There is evidence that the company’s process to identify its salient human rights issues has given appropriate weight to particularly high severity impacts, even if their likelihood is relatively low.
• There is evidence that informed external stakeholders find the identified salient human rights issues credible given the company’s sector and their knowledge of its activities and business relationships.
  AND There is no significant public media or other reporting that would suggest salient human rights issues have been omitted.
  AND There is no other evidence of severe human rights impacts or risks that are not covered by the salient human rights issues identified.

The effectiveness of how the company’s salient human rights issues are determined (B2) is partly reflected in the appropriateness of the outcome under B1. The appropriateness indicators in B1 can, therefore, also be seen as effectiveness indicators for B2.

TIER THREE ASSURANCE

no additional indicators