Erb Institute Toolbox: Business & Human Rights Impact Assessment

Page 1


Impact Assessment

Contents Introduction and Business Case ...........1


Impact Assessment

Overview: Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) ...................3 Inclusive Engagement ...........................4 Scoping and Preperation .......................6 Identify Human Rights Risks.................8 Assess Human Rights Impact .............10 Case Studies .........................................12 Resources ..............................................14 Appendix...............................................16

Impact Assessment

Introduction + Business Case DEFINING HUMAN RIGHTS Human Rights encompass the internationally agreed upon basic rights and fundamental freedoms held by all people. Human rights were defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. In 1966, human rights were further codified by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Together, these three documents encompass the International Bill of Human Rights.


Interdependent and Interrelated:

Universal and Inalienable:


All humans are born with and entitled to the same rights.

All human rights hold equal status, thus they cannot be prioritized.

Equality and Non-discrimination:

Participation and Inclusion:

Human rights cannot be denied on the basis of race, colour, ethnicity, gender, age, language, sexual orientation, religion, political or other opinion, national, social or geographical origin, disability, property, birth or other status.

All people have the right to participate in decision making processes that will impact their life and well-being.

Fulfilling one human right requires the fulfillment of all other rights.

Accountability and Rule of Law: States must comply by the standards decreed in the International Bill of Human Rights. Oppressed rights holders may pursue legal proceedings to rectify human rights infractions.

UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK Adopted in June 2011, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (GPs) differentiate responsibility between governments and corporations. The three pillars to the Guiding Principles Framework are “Protect, Respect, and Remedy”. “Protect” refers to the state’s duty to protect citizens through policies, regulations, and adjudication. “Respect” refers to the expectation society has for business to respect human rights in their core business operations, meaning refrain from interfering with the enjoyment of the right. “Remedy” refers to both the government and corporate responsibility to support survivors of human rights abuses, because even the most diligent effort cannot prevent all abuse. Each of these pillars are then broken into Operational Principles and Foundational Principles.

When using the UN Guiding Principles as the reference document for conducting human rights due diligence, businesses are required to consider at a minimum the rights in the International Bill of Human Rights and the International Labour Organisation’s eight core conventions outlined in the Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The framework is not legally binding, though it was unanimously endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council, has received wide support from governments, business associations, investors, nongovernmental organizations, and other CSR stakeholders, and its principles have been incorporated into and recognized by other CSR standards.



For businesses to adhere to the GPs, they need to be able to “know and show” that they respect human rights and demonstrate this through the establishment of:

A policy expressing commitment to respect human rights, which incorporates input from all stakeholders, is approved at the highest level, and communicated publicly

A human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for how they address their impacts on human rights

Processes to enable the remediation of any adverse human rights impacts they cause or to which they contribute

BUSINESS CASE FOR BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS With many governments struggling to effectively protect human rights, businesses have an opportunity and responsibility to ensure that they respect human rights. By performing Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIA), businesses are able to make proactive and strategic decisions related to human rights risks, which will lead to more stable and predictable operating environments, lower financial and legal risk, as well as enhanced outcomes for individual and collective rights holders. HRIAs can create value for businesses through risk management and growth opportunities. Businesses thrive in stable and predictable markets. As news becomes more transparent and real-time, businesses cannot afford to react to unforeseen reputational and operational risks. Stakeholders, ranging from consumers, shareholders, and employees, are better equipped to hold companies accountable for violations of human rights. By assessing human rights risk, businesses can prevent dissatisfied stakeholders from leading protests, strikes, shut-downs, legal action, and violence.

Global businesses face increasing operational complexity, and thereby costs, when navigating heterogeneous political contexts. Particularly in states with weak governing bodies, businesses may be seen as complicit in human rights abuses. For example, in the 1990s, Royal Dutch Shell faced extreme criticism from diverse stakeholders when the company was seen as complicit in the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa by the Nigerian government. Finally, businesses must minimize costs associated with turnover at all levels of the business to stay competitive. Even in low-skill jobs, businesses have found that higher wages, better benefits and safer work environments increase worker productivity and decrease turnover.1 In addition to risk management, businesses can benefit from performing HRIAs because the process may unveil insights for new strategies, procedures or even products. Much of the HRIA process is about stakeholder engagement. By better understanding the needs of individuals and communities, businesses should identify opportunities for innovation.2

1 Cascio, W. (2006) The High Cost of Low Wages, Harvard Business Review. 2 Brown, Tim, and Barry Katz. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: Harper Business, 2009.


UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | Erb Institute for Sustainable Global Enterprise

Impact Assessment

Overview: Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) Framework The Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) Framework enables a company to identify and assess the human rights risks and impacts of its business activities. Inclusive engagement underpins the HRIA process. Without including the voices and perspectives of rights-holders, a company cannot gain a 360-degree understanding of its human rights impact. Moreover, it is critical that the company engages with individuals and communities throughout the HRIA process.


Inclusive Engagement 1 Scope and Prepare

2 Identify Human Rights Risks

There are four key stages to the HRIA Process: (1) Scope, (2) Identify, (3) Assess and (4) Integrate and Implement. In the scoping phase, the company must define the boundaries for the HRIA. The company should decide: E Why the HRIA is being conducted? E Who will perform the HRIA? E Where will the HRIA be performed geographically? E When can the HRIA be performed? How long will it take? Next, the company will dive into identifying human rights risks. In this phase, the HRIA team must

3 Assess Human Rights Impact

4 Integrate and Implement

gather data to determine the human rights risks in the business activities, the business relationships, the industry and the geographic context. Once human rights risks are identified, the company will assess the identified human rights risks for possible impacts and consequences. In this phase, the company will determine the severity, likelihood, scale and remediability of human rights risks. Once an HRIA is performed, the company should move into integrating and implementing its findings. The steps for this phase are covered in the Erb Institute Business and Human Rights Implementation Toolbox.



Inclusive Engagement The HRIA process fundamentally examines the dynamics between duty-bearers and rights-holders.3 Duty-bearers are those HRIA stakeholders who are obligated to respect, protect and fulfill the rights of right-holders. In an HRIA, duty-bearers include the company, its representatives, business partners, the state and other authority holders.

Duty-bearers are obligated to respect, protect and fulfill the rights of rightsholders.


Every human is a rights-holder (see graphic above). Importantly, rights-holders may include vulnerable and ‘at risk’ stakeholders. Vulnerable and ‘at risk’ rights-holders refer to individuals or communities, who are marginalized socially, culturally, economically, environmentally, and/or politically. Vulnerable rightsholders often include women, indigenous groups, ethnic and religious minorities, children, elderly people, people with disabilities, single-headed households, migrant workers, and non-landholders. All humans have the right to participate in decision-making processes that will impact their lives and well-being, as stipulated by the human rights principles described at the beginning of the document. As such, businesses must meaningfully include all rights-holders, particularly vulnerable groups, in the HRIA. Inclusive engagement is a method, by which businesses can ensure that all duty-bearers and rightsholders participate meaningfully at each phase of the HRIA process.

In each HRIA, companies should identify the rights-holders for the scope being considered.




Every human is a rights-holder, who is entitled to rights, claim rights, hold the duty-bearer accountable and respect the rights of others.

Specific questions include: •

Who are the rights-holders? Which rights-holders might be vulnerable?

What are their immediate needs?

Are they aware of their rights or how and where to claim them?

What are their assets and capabilities?

How are they organised?

Inclusive engagement allows the company to ensure that the voices and perspectives of all rights-holders are included in the HRIA. An HRIA process can be considered inclusive only when the company engages with rights-holders continuously and transparently, while also ensuring accessibility. The company should strive to consult with rights-holders on an ongoing basis to establish trust, while also enabling timely communication. Engagement methods may include interviewing rights-holders, holding open forums for information exchange, and/or establishing a grievance reporting mechanism.

Boesen, J.K. and Martin, T. (2007) Applying a Rights-based Approach, DIHR.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | Erb Institute for Sustainable Global Enterprise

Impact Assessment

Continuous engagement means that duty-bearers create open and frequent forums to exchange information between rights-holders and duty-bearers. Transparent engagement means that duty-bearers proactively share information that may impact rightsholders. Duty-bearers should share information with rights-holders comprehensively, capturing both negative impacts and positive outcomes. Accessible engagement means that duty-holders must communicate information so that it is easily interpreted by all rights-holders. Accessibility relates to what format is used to communicate information (e.g., written, visual, oral, etc.). Accessibility also considers the language of the communication, as well as where information is disseminated.

Throughout the HRIA, the following questions should be considered: •

Were rights-holders consulted?

Are a broad range of rights-holders and dutybearers involved in identifying and understanding human rights considerations in relation to the company’s activities in the area?

When engaging communities, has your operation taken special measures to include all rights-holders, including vulnerable and ‘at risk’ groups?

Has your operation taken care to engage and consult with communities in ways that are gender sensitive and culturally appropriate?

Does your business proactively share timely, accurate and relevant information with communities about project development and implementation throughout the project lifecycle?

Are there multiple avenues for communities to engage; for example, through consultation, community visits and open days, and complaints, disputes, and grievance processes? Are there community offices or information points available?

Continuous Transparent


Inclusive Engagement By embodying continuous, transparent and accessible engagement, the company will ensure that human rights risks and impacts – particularly to vulnerable groups – are identified comprehensively in the HRIA.

The Erb Institute Stakeholder Engagement Toolbox has additional guidelines and considerations for engaging with rights-holders and duty-bearers.




Scoping and Preparation Planning and scoping the parameters for the HRIA is key to ensuring that it will achieve the desired results. Three areas must be considered in this preparation phase – the business activities, the human rights context, and the relevant stakeholders.




It is important to incorporate the sphere of impact, rather than a sphere of influence, as suggested in the UN Guiding Principles. Impact is inclusive of not just issues that the business causes directly, but also those that the business contributes to or is directly linked to business activities and relationships. These impacts are not defined by geographical boundaries and should be addressed based on level of severity, rather than on proximity and control4.

The information gathered during the scoping process will be used to inform the purpose of the HRIA. It will also support development of the methodology and work plan ahead of the data collection and impact analysis.



Götzmann, N. Bansal, T. Wrzoncki, E. Poulsen-Hansen, C. Tedaldi, J. and Høvsgaard, R. Human Rights Impact Assessment Guidance and Toolbox. The Danish Institute for Human Rights, 2016.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | Erb Institute for Sustainable Global Enterprise

Impact Assessment

Companies should ask themselves a set of questions when conducting the HRIA process such as5:

WHY Why perform a Human Rights Impact Assessment? Triggers to beginning this process could include anything from investor expectations to monitoring from an external organization that calls into question the company’s’ reputation. Some questions to ask include:

WHERE Where will the HRIA take place? Companies need to consider local, country-wide, and multi-country approaches in scoping an HRIA. Some questions to include:

E Why is the company motivated to conduct HRIA and is it proactive or reactive?

E Is the company aware of any human rights challenges or conflict in the area of the planned or existing business activity and what are the legal protections that exist?

E What is the context within which business activity will take place, and what is the specific nature of human rights risk?

E Do people in the regions impacted have access to remedy for remediation of adverse human rights impact?

WHO Who will perform an HRIA? Companies will need to consider resources, competence, and capacity for conducting the Human Rights Impact Assessment. A diverse team adds to the richness of a report with a range of skills and perspectives. Credibility and neutrality is also a critical aspect to consider. Some questions to ask include:

WHEN When will the HRIA take place? There may be opportunities or threats that impact the company’s timing in conducting a HRIA. It may be difficult to anticipate the time that will be required to conduct a complete HRIA. A company can prepare to address urgent needs first and budget time in for unforeseen obstacles.

E Should the HRIA be performed by an external party?

E Are there suspected impacts that need immediate attention?

E Which functions within regional offices, and which individuals in the company should be involved in the assessment process and how should they be involved?

E Are there any political, financial or other obstacles that will impede the timeline of conducting an HRIA?

E Who are the relevant HRIA practitioners based on location and industry that can provide expertise, independent analysis, and credibility to the report?


Abrahams, D. (IBLF) and Wyss, Y. (IFC).; Guide to Human Rights Impact Assessment and Management (HRIAM), 2010.




Identify Human Rights Risks Next, the HRIA team must identify how human rights intersect with the business activities and relationships within the industry and country context. In this phase, the HRIA will collect primary and secondary data to uncover actual human rights violations and potential human rights risks. Both quantitative and qualitative data will be captured in order to holistically indicate the status of human rights. In each context, human rights will be evaluated using three indicators: structural, procedural, and outcome. Structural indicators identify whether there is intent and commitment to upholding human rights. These indicators often consider what commitments a business has made to human rights (or the lack thereof ) through policy or public relations. Procedural indicators identify the level of effort dedicated to upholding human rights. In turn, these indicators focus on the processes and/or procedures a business uses to identify, avoid,

Structural (policy)

and/or address human rights risks. Outcome indicators identify the impact of structural and procedural indicators for preserving human rights. In the HRIA, companies should evaluate the structural, procedural and outcome indicators for its business activities, business relationships, industry and country (or geographic) contexts. Throughout this research, the HRIA team should systematically document and record identiďŹ ed human rights risks in a table (example in Appendix)

Procedural (process)

Outcome (impact)

Business Activity Business Relationships Industry Country/Geography

BUSINESS ACTIVITIES The HRIA team should perform both internal and external research to determine the human rights impact of the company’s business activities on the structural, procedural and outcome indicators of human rights. Internally, the HRIA team should collect all published material related to human rights, such as policy documents, process maps, and strategic plans.


Additionally, the HRIA team should perform interviews with key departments and personnel involved in the scope of the HRIA. Through external research, the HRIA team will gather an unbiased view on how business activities intersect with human rights. The HRIA team should perform a media and legal search to identify any human rights allegations against the company. Similarly, the team should explore reports produced by watchdog organizations.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | Erb Institute for Sustainable Global Enterprise

Impact Assessment

Additionally, the HRIA team should engage with rights-holders, through interviews and open forums. In certain circumstances, it may be challenging to initially understand the context and attitudes of rights-holders. In such instances, the HRIA team would benefit from interviews with NGOs, governmental entities, trade unions and/or human rights activities in the region to gain an understanding of the local human rights conditions.

BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS The HRIA team should also dive into the structural, procedural and outcome indicators for human rights for other businesses with which the company interacts. Business relationships include subsidiaries, suppliers, contractors, joint venture partnerships, public-private partnerships, etc. Business relationships should be defined as any entity that could expose the company as complicit in human rights violations.

Key questions to ask include: •

What provisions within the partnership contracts and documentation address human rights risks and impacts?

What mechanisms enable the partners to respond effectively to human rights and other challenges?

INDUSTRY Each industry has unique circumstances for its potential impact on human rights. The HRIA should widen its research scope to understand what types of human rights risks typically exist in this industry. Specifically, the team should examine past human rights violations in this industry. How were these violations identified and addressed? What were the short-term and long-term repercussions on the business and rights-holders?

COUNTRY/GEOGRAPHY Depending on the level of control, a company may not be able to examine or influence how a business partner considers human rights. As such, the company should consider the following questions to determine how to proceed with the HRIA: •

Does the company retain the majority ownership or overall control of the business activity?

If the company has a minority interest, where does the control lie and how are minority interests protected?

Will the company’s brand be at risk if human rights challenges arise in the business activity?

If the company has majority control of the business partner, the HRIA team can proceed similarly to how it identified human rights impact related to business activities. If the company has minority control of the business partner, the HRIA team should focus its research on the contracts established for the business partnerships.

Finally, the HRIA team should consider the risks related to the specific country or geography of its operations. The country context will affect the company’s ability to address human rights risks. In particular, the HRIA should identify: •

Gaps between national law and the International Bill of Human Rights

Gaps in enforcing and/or observing the law

In turn, the HRIA team should determine how these gaps may impact the ability of the business to protect human rights in that country. To determine the human rights standards in a country, the HRIA team should research country risk profiles, human rights indices, and census data created by watchdog organizations, such as Human Rights Watch, and international groups, such as the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).




Assess Human Rights Impact An assessment tool can be built to assess the human rights impacts and risks. It should be comprehensive, considering all of the human rights and the related articles and conventions adopted by the UN General Assembly. This tool should be used to identify existing human rights impacts and also anticipate future trends and provide a structure to manage and remediate human rights impacts through actionable and relevant recommendations that will lead to protection of human rights. This assessment can be conducted at the corporate level, the country level, the site level, or the product level6.

A comprehensive tool will be complex given the amount of information included in the analysis. Below is a simplified snapshot with the following key components: IDENTIFIED HUMAN RIGHTS: All human rights should be considered during the initial phase of the assessment and through analysis those rights most relevant to the company will be identiďŹ ed and included in the assessment. This includes rights from the International Bill of Human Rights (comprising the UDHR, as well as the ICCPR and the ICESCR.

SNAPSHOT Identify Human Rights: UNDR, ICCPR, or ICESCR articles

Source: of Risks and Impacts

Stakeholders Impacted

Define Salient Risks: Scope, Scale, & Remediability

Right to not be subjected to slavery, servitude or forced labor

Indirect suppliers

Contracted employees Scope: High in Bangladesh Scale: Low factories Remediability: Low

UNHR 4; ICCPR 8; ILO No. 29; ILO No. 105 Right to Privacy UDHR 12; ICCPR 15 Right to own property UDHR 17; ICESCR 15 Right to education UDHR 26; ICESC 13; ICESC 14



BSR, Conducting an Eective Human Rights Impact Assessment Guidelines, Steps, and Examples. 2013.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | Erb Institute for Sustainable Global Enterprise

Prioritize Risks: Attribution, Control, Management

Recommendations: Remediation and Potential Opportunities

Attribution: Contribute

Count factories providing supplies indirectly

Control: Indirect Management: Low

Predict demand further in advance Monitor Tier 3 contracts

Impact Assessment



The team will identify where human rights risks and impacts exist internally with business operations, or externally with a contractor, supplier, or government.

Prioritize risks and opportunities to determine where the company should focus resources. While all impacts and risks should be addressed, businesses must account for capacity of their management systems and given limited resources, the following categories of information should be considered to determine the order in which impacts and risks are addressed:

STAKEHOLDERS IMPACTED: The teams should identify groups or communities impacted by specific rights identified such as Indigenous Peoples, local communities, employees, or customers.


Attribution: The team should determine if company is causing or contributing to the negative impact. Is the company inflicting harm or furthering or enabling actions of others to inflict harm?

Control: The team should identify the level of control they have to prevent or mitigate impact, including strength of influence with business partners. Collaboration with NGOs and government may be necessary here. The team should consider the presence of conflict, corruption, vulnerable groups, and repression for context.

Management: The team should assign a qualitative measure to how well current management handles due diligence and manages risk being assessed. Company blind spots and company culture should be a consideration.

The teams must consider the relative weight of risk factors: •

Scope: Determine how serious the impact will be, anywhere from certain loss of life to impact not likely to cause bodily harm, but other human rights will be significantly affected. Remediability: Determine if a remedy could restore the victim to the same or equivalent position before the harm occurred. With the most serious harm, remedies will not return the victim to the same or equivalent condition before harm occurred. In fully remediable cases, the remedy could return the victim to the original state prior to the harm. Scale: Determine how many people are likely to be affected by the harm and assign ranges to impact based on context.

RECOMMENDATIONS: These can range from avoiding negative impacts, to capitalizing on business opportunities and maximizing positive impact. Beyond specific rights addressed in the HRIA, teams can recommend developing new human rights policies, or process goals such as engagement of specific stakeholders.

After completing the assessment, the team will need to build a robust approach to address the impacts, risks and opportunities by strengthening stakeholder engagement, as well as human rights strategy, policies, and processes. For more information on implementation and integration of the HRIA into business operations, please see the Erb Institute Business and Human Rights Implementation Toolbox. BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TOOLKIT | MARCH 2016


Case Studies MICROSOFT Microsoft’s commitment to integrating human rights into its business operations is an ongoing process. The launch of their initiative was triggered by the external climate causing an increase in perception of risk in the information and communications technology (ICT) industry. The most prominent human rights concerning technology are privacy, data security and freedom of expression but go as far as including topics such as how human rights may be portrayed in video games. Microsoft’s commitment to get ahead of the concerns put them on the path to leading the technology sector.

When the UN Guiding Principles came out in 2011, the key question for Microsoft was not whether or why they should apply them, but how. Microsoft hired the Human Rights team at BSR, to act as an expert external partner in defining and implementing their robust Human Rights strategy.


Rule of law: What aspects of “rule of law” are most relevant for human rights at Microsoft, and how are they relevant?


Market entry, exit, and engagement: From a human rights perspective, when does it make sense for Microsoft to enter a market, stay in a market, or leave a market, and how should these activities be undertaken?


Economic, social, and cultural rights, and civil and political rights: Which communities are most likely to achieve greater realization of human rights through the economic empowerment that results from Microsoft’s business and products? How can Microsoft support this?

Microsoft and BSR explored five questions7: 1.

Human rights basics: What are Microsoft’s main human rights impacts, and who comprise Microsoft’s human rights constituency?


Business strategy, model, and operations: What issues will grow in significance as a result of Microsoft’s strategy, business model, and evolving operations?



Bross, D. “How Microsoft Did It: Implementing the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.” BSR Blog. December 4, 2012.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | Erb Institute for Sustainable Global Enterprise

Impact Assessment

Drawing on the company’s vision, mission, and values, together they defined Microsoft’s commitment, approach, and philosophy for their Human Rights Statement and scoped and identified salient risks. Three years into their partnership by 2014, Microsoft had already completed HRIAs in several areas including Corporate, Skype, Cloud, Windows Store, and Myanmar. They then created a strategy to complete HRIAs with their Xbox and Skype partners and their public sector and enterprise sales. They also planned to create an HRIA framework for partnership and acquisition due diligence.

Although the nature of human rights is qualitative, Microsoft established metrics to track their progress. A sample of metrics measured include: •

Number of law enforcement demands for user information by country and resulting disclosures or non-disclosures

Number of HRIAs conducted by product, region, and business process

Percentage of suppliers screened on human rights performance

Diversity data for US-based employees

Number and percentage women in the global workforce

Number of Microsoft Employees trained in human rights by function

This work is ongoing and led now by Microsoft’s Technology and Human Rights Center to more effectively advance and coordinate thinking in the area of ICT and human rights responsibilities and commitments. The Center unites Microsoft’s various efforts to understand and promote the role of technology in protecting human rights and fosters dialogue on these issues with human rights experts and stakeholders. A driving factor in Microsoft’s success to embed human rights throughout the company has been the engagement and support of executive leadership.


In 1992, Rio Tinto identified a possible diamond mine in Zvishavane, a rural district in southwest Zimbabwe. In 1999, Rio Tinto discovered in its HRIA that to lease the mine, 142 families and 250 graves would need to be resettled. Rio Tinto performed extensive community consultation to understand the needs of the community. In 2000, Rio Tinto began negotiations with the Zimbabwean government, NGOs and the affected communities to develop mutual understanding and shared approach for resettling the community. In particular, community elected representatives represented the voices of women and children in the negotiation. Negotiations were mediated by an external mediator. In the end, Rio Tinto purchased 15,000 hectares -more than 10X of the original land this community had. By 2003, Rio Tinto had helped resettle all the movable assets of the resettled community members and compensated them for any losses. Additionally, Rio Tinto built a school, a rural health centre, housing for teachers and nurses, a church, roads and water provision for the new community. By the end of the next year, the resettled community members reported better harvests in the new community compared to the old one. Moreover, Rio Tinto continued to engage with the community by providing health, training and agricultural capacity building programmes for ten years after resettlement. In turn, the Zvishavane diamond mine produces 250,000 carats of diamonds per year -- a value of $1B-$3.25B per year.





Abrahams, D., and Wyss, Y. Guide to Human Rights Impact Assessment and Management (HRIAM). International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF), International Finance Corporation (IFC), and UN Global Compact, Sept. 2011. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <>.

Götzmann, N., T. Bansal, E. Wrzoncki, C. Poulsen-Hansen, J. Tedaldi, and R. Høvsgaard. Human Rights Impact Assessment Guidance and Toolbox. Rep. Danish Institute for Human Rights, Jan. 2016. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <>.

Joseph, S., Chambers, R. et al. Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide. Monash University, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, 2008. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. < english/issues/globalization/business/docs/Human_Rights_Translated_web.pdf>.

Lenzen, O., and M. D’Engelbronner. Guide to Corporate Human Rights Impact Assessment Tools. Rep. Aim for Human Rights, Jan. 2009. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. < uploads/2015/06/Human-Rights-in-Business-Guide-to-Corporate-Human-Rights.pdf>.

Natour, F., and J. Davis Pluess. Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment. Rep. BSR, Mar. 2013. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. < Assessments.pdf>.

Respecting Human Rights Through Global Supply Chains. Shift, Oct. 2012. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://>.

The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights: An Interpretive Guide. United Nations Human Rights, 2012. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. < En.pdf>.

Why Human Rights Matter. Rep. Rio Tinto, Jan. 2013. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. < documents/ReportsPublications/Rio_Tinto_human_rights_guide_-_English_version.pdf>.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | Erb Institute for Sustainable Global Enterprise

Impact Assessment

Resources Here is a curated list of resources where you can find additional information on this subject. These resources may also direct you to links to additional information. For the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights document regarding the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, see:

For additional background and overview on Human Rights Impact Assessments Danish Institute for Human Rights HRIA Guidance and Toolbox Guide to Human Rights Impact Assessment and Management (HRIAM) by International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF), International Finance Corporation (IFC), and UN Global Compact Guide to Corporate Human Rights Impact Assessment Tools Rio Tinto on Why Human Rights Matter

For more details on the scoping and preparation portion of the HRIA, see: Danish Institute Scoping Supplement Guide: scoping_prac_sup_final_jan2016.pdf Danish Institute Terms of Reference Supplement tor_prac_sup_final_jan2016.pdf For a list of Human Rights and articles relevant to businesses, see: Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide by Castan Centre for Human Rights Law english/issues/globalization/business/docs/Human_Rights_Translated_web.pdf

te but similar concepts of materiality have grown out of:




Impact Assessment

Appendix Human Right

International Bill of Human Rights Article

Right to life


Source of Risks and Impacts

Define Salient Risks Impacted Stakeholders




Prioritize Risks Attribution


Management Recommendations

Right to liberty and UDHR 3 and 9; ICCPR 9 security (including freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile) Right not to be subjected to slavery, servitude or forced labor

UDHR 4; ICCPR 8; ILO No.29; ILO No.105

Right not to be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman and/ or degrading treatment or punishment


Right to recognition as a person before the law

UDHR 6; ICCPR 16 187

Right to equality before the law, equal protection of the law, nondiscrimination

UDHR 7; ICCPR 26; ILO No.111

Right to freedom from war propaganda, and freedom from incitement to racial, religious or national hatred


Right to access to effective remedies


Right to a fair trial


Right to be free from retroactive criminal law




Appendix Human Right

International Bill of Human Rights Article

Right to privacy


Right to freedom of movement


Right to seek asylum from prosecution in other countries


Right to have a nationality


Right to marry and form a family


Right to own property


Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion


Right to freedom of opinion, information and expression


Right to freedom of assembly


Right to freedom of association

UDHR 20; ICCPR 22; ILO No.87

Source of Risks and Impacts

Define Salient Risks Impacted Stakeholders




Right to participate UDHR 21; ICCPR 25 in public life

Right to social security, including social insurance


Right to work



UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | Erb Institute for Sustainable Global Enterprise

Prioritize Risks Attribution


Management Recommendations

Impact Assessment

Human Right Right to enjoy just and favorable conditions of work (including rest and leisure)

International Bill of Human Rights Article

Source of Risks and Impacts

Define Salient Risks Impacted Stakeholders




Prioritize Risks Attribution


Management Recommendations

UDHR 23 and 24; ICESCR 7

Right to form trade UDHR 23; ICESCR 8; ILO No.98 unions and join the trade unions, and the right to strike Right to an UDHR 25; ICESCR 11 adequate standard of living (Housing, Food, Water & Sanitation) Right of protection for the child

UDHR 25; ICCPR 24; ILO No.182

Right to health

UDHR 25; ICESCR 12 189

Right to education

UDHR 26; ICESCR 13 and 14

Right to take part in cultural life, benefit from scientific progress, material and moral rights of authors and inventors


Right to selfdetermination


Right not to be subjected to imprisonment for inability to fulfill a contract


Right of aliens due process when facing expulsion


Rights of minorities




PREPARED BY: Marianna Kerppola Erb Institute MBA/MS Student 2016 Cazzie Palacios Brown Erb Institute MBA/MS Student 2018


Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.