Conducting an Effective Human

Rights Impact Assessment

Guidelines, Steps, and Examples

March 2013

www.bsr.org
Foreword by Christine Bader
If you’ve picked up this report, you’re probably a company manager who has
been charged with figuring out what human rights means to your business and
what if anything you need to do differently—amid many other responsibilities and
demands on your time. You may have heard of human rights impact
assessments (HRIAs), but perhaps you don’t know how to do them and are
concerned about imposing yet another process on your time- and cash-strapped
colleagues.

Well, dear reader, I’ve been in your shoes—and can tell you that this report
should be very helpful to you. BSR has 20-plus years of experience working with
companies on human rights and other sustainability issues, and it shows in this
report: for example, in its emphasis on incorporating HRIAs into existing
company procedures.

As advisor to the UN Special Representative for Business and Human Rights, I

had the honor of supporting the development of the Guiding Principles on
Business and Human Rights. But despite the six years of extensive research and
consultation that led to the Guiding Principles, as the Special Representative
himself said to the Human Rights Council, the principles are merely “the end of
the beginning.” Now it is up to organizations like BSR and its member
companies—specifically, people like you—to show what the Guiding Principles
mean in practice.

Congratulations to my colleagues at BSR on the publication of this report, which

will be of great service to the burgeoning field of business and human rights, the
companies seeking to meet their social responsibilities, and most importantly, the
individuals and communities around the world that those companies touch.

Christine Bader
BSR Human Rights Advisor, former Advisor to the UN Special Representative for
Business and Human Rights,
and former Manager of Policy Development at BP plc

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 2

About This Report
This report was written by Faris Natour, Director, Human Rights, and Jessica
Davis Pluess, Manager, Research, with contributions from many BSR colleagues
and advisors. It captures key lessons learned from BSR’s work conducting
human rights impact assessments (HRIAs) and outlines our approach to
corporate-, country-, site-, and product-level HRIAs using eight guidelines. The
report outlines a framework that should be carefully tailored to a company’s
unique risk profile and operating context; it is not intended as an off-the-shelf
HRIA tool or checklist. Our approach has evolved over the last couple of years,
and we expect it to continue to evolve with further applications. We plan to
update this report periodically to incorporate new insights and in-practice
examples. For questions about the report or BSR’s human rights practice, please
contact Faris at fnatour@bsr.org or Jessica at jdavispluess@bsr.org.

Disclaimer

BSR publishes occasional papers as a contribution to the understanding of the

role of business in society and the trends related to corporate social responsibility
and responsible business practices. BSR maintains a policy of not acting as a
representative of its membership, nor does it endorse specific policies or
standards. The views expressed in this publication are those of its authors and
not necessarily those of BSR members.

About BSR

A leader in corporate responsibility since 1992, BSR works with its global
network of nearly 300 member companies to develop sustainable business
strategies and solutions through consulting, research, and cross-sector
collaboration. With offices in Asia, Europe, North and South America, BSR uses
its expertise in the environment, human rights, economic development, and
governance and accountability to guide global companies toward creating a just
and sustainable world. Visit www.bsr.org for more information.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 3

Contents

5 Introduction

8 Guidelines

18 HRIA Levels

22 Steps

29 Resources

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 4

 Introduction

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and

Human Rights1 have emerged as the global
standard for companies’ management of their
human rights impacts. Under the Guiding
Principles, companies are expected to “know and
show” that they do not infringe on human rights
through their operations or business relationships.
Human rights impact assessments represent a key
first step in meeting this expectation.
BSR has been conducting human rights due diligence with companies since our
founding, a little more than 20 years ago. Over the past two years, we have
worked with companies in multiple industries conducting human rights impact
assessments (HRIAs) that align with the Guiding Principles (GPs). This report is
intended to capture the lessons we have learned and to share our eight
guidelines for conducting effective HRIAs, as well as step-by-step guidance on
the four levels of HRIAs: corporate, country, site, and product.

WHAT IS AN HRIA?
Q: How is an HRIA
The GPs provide clarity about how companies can meet their responsibility to
different from due
respect human rights. Respect for human rights is defined as avoiding
diligence?
infringement on the rights of others and addressing adverse human rights
impacts. To meet this responsibility, companies are expected to adopt a human
A: Human rights due
rights policy and to carry out human rights due diligence. The key elements of
diligence is the term the
human rights due diligence are:
Guiding Principles use to
describe the overall process
» Assessing actual and potential impacts (including through HRIAs)
companies undertake to
ensure respect for human » Integrating and acting upon your findings
rights. Due diligence » Tracking performance
includes HRIAs,
implementing findings, and » Communicating how you are addressing actual and potential impacts
measuring and reporting on
performance. An HRIA simplifies the complexity of managing human rights by providing
companies with a consistent, efficient, and systematic way to identify, prioritize,
and address human rights risks and opportunities at a corporate, country, site, or
product level.

Many companies are already assessing and addressing relevant human rights
issues in a variety of ways, such as by enacting nondiscrimination policies,
enforcing supplier codes of conduct and factory audits, conducting site-level
social impact assessments, and engaging with communities.

1
UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Guiding Principles on Business and Human
Rights, endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, www.business-
humanrights.org/Documents/UNGuidingPrinciples.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 5

Where an HRIA differs from these processes is in how it:

» Uses international human rights instruments as its benchmark and

framework
» Assesses risks to rights holders, not just the company, as well as the
capacity of duty bearers
2
» Uses human rights expertise

Every negative business impact does not necessarily infringe on human rights.
An HRIA can help a company understand when a negative social or
environmental impact begins to infringe on human rights. For example,
contamination of a river stemming from a mining project would infringe on the
right to water for nearby residents who depend on the stream for drinking water.
However, low levels of contamination, while negative, may not infringe on the
human rights of nearby residents who use the river only for recreational
purposes.

WHY CONDUCT AN HRIA?

Assessing human rights impacts helps companies proactively shape a strategic
approach to human rights based on relevant risks and opportunities rather than
reacting to external pressure or unexpected incidents. Companies across many
industries continue to wrestle with important
questions about their role in respecting and Business Case for an
promoting human rights. From questions HRIA
surrounding the role of social networks and
mobile technology in promoting and  Meet expectations and
protecting freedom of expression during the address pressure from
Arab Spring to debate over responsible key stakeholders.
investment in Myanmar, a company must  Manage reputation,
have a clear grasp of its human rights risks, operational, legal, and
opportunities, and impacts to meet societal financial risks.
expectations for business.  Engage, retain, and
motivate staff.
An HRIA is part of every company’s  Demonstrate leadership
responsibility to treat all human beings with and management
respect and dignity. Operating without standards.
infringing on human rights is one of society’s
baseline expectations of business. Meeting
this expectation is not just an ethical imperative, it also makes business sense.
We anticipate that in the years and decades to come, HRIAs will become a key
component of companies’ strategies for new product development, market entry,
and other key business decisions.

In addition to avoiding risks, business has a significant role to play in promoting

and advancing human rights. While this role extends beyond the baseline
responsibility for business articulated in the GPs, harnessing this opportunity not
only strengthens human rights protections; it also drives brand value and
employee engagement.

2
See also UN Special Representative for Business and Human Rights, “Human Rights Impact
Assessments— Resolving Key Methodological Questions,” February 5, 2007, www.reports-and-
materials.org/Ruggie-report-human-rights-impact-assessments-5-Feb-2007.pdf.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 6

Companies can draw significant value, not only from the results of an HRIA, but
also from the process itself. We have found that the process of conducting an
HRIA can help build internal capacity, strengthen stakeholder relations, and yield
important insights into the effectiveness of existing company policies, processes,
and tools. The guidelines introduced in this report are intended to maximize
these process benefits, as well as the value gained from clear results.

The GPs are becoming more widely used and referenced by governments,
stakeholders and business. Key provisions such as human rights due diligence
are already being incorporated into public policy and regulation at the
3
international, national, and local levels. Thus, companies who are equipped with
the processes, tools and data to avoid infringing human rights are more likely to
meet regulatory requirements in the long-term.

HOW TO USE THIS REPORT

This report includes four key components:

» Guidelines: Eight principles to keep in mind when conducting an HRIA

» In-practice examples: Real company examples from our human rights
practice that illustrate the guidelines
» HRIA levels: The four levels at which a company can conduct HRIAs
» Steps: The basic four-step process we follow when conducting an HRIA

Our HRIA approach is a framework that should be carefully tailored to a

company’s unique risk profile and operating context; it is not intended as a
comprehensive, off-the-shelf tool or checklist.

3
Ruggie, John, UN Special Representative for Business and Human Rights, “Progress in Corporate
Accountability,” The Institute for Human Rights and Business,
http://www.ihrb.org/commentary/board/progress-in-corporate-accountability.html.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 7

 Guidelines
Our approach to HRIAs is based on eight
guidelines that capture the lessons of what HRIA Guidelines
does and does not work when conducting 1. Customization
HRIAs based on BSR’s experience. They
shape the decisions we make with 2. Integration
companies during the process to ensure 3. Ownership
that an HRIA provides actionable results for
business improvement, instead of ending up 4. Focus
as a report that collects dust. 5. Risks and opportunities
GUIDELINE 1: CUSTOMIZATION 6. Meaningful engagement
Q: How is an HRIA In our experience, HRIAs (like any
different from other 7. Transparency
assessment) are most effective when they
socioeconomic are tailored to a company’s business 8. Strategic alignment
assessments? strategy, risk profile, language, and culture.
While off-the shelf tools have a number of
A: While an HRIA will cover benefits, it is important that the HRIA approach reflect the company’s unique
many of the same issues, it operating context and availability of human and financial resources without
often considers a wider compromising on the necessary rigor. Based on our experience, it is more
scope of issues since its efficient and less expensive to customize an approach based on existing
starting point is the full suite company practices rather than a one-size-fits-all assessment approach.
of internationally recognized
human rights. An existing The HRIA levels and steps outlined in this report are intended as a guide for
infringement on human companies to develop a customized approach that builds on what is already
rights must be addressed, known, aligns with the company’s knowledge of human rights, and leverages
while a negative social existing processes, tools, and data. We have used this approach in all of BSR’s
impact can sometimes be HRIA projects, and yet in each case, the tools, process, and deliverables have
acceptable. The HRIA looked different, reflecting the unique situation of the company partner. Over the
captures risks to rights last few years, BSR has developed a set of tools for analyzing and synthesizing
holders in addition to risks qualitative and quantitative information gathered in the assessment that are
to the business. tailored to the company context and relevant human rights issues.

Customization does not mean dilution. For example, the universe of human rights
Relying on human rights
issues subject to assessment should always be based—at a minimum—on the
experts and engaging
rights included in the International Bill of Rights and the International Labour
directly with rights holders 4
Organization (ILO) Core Conventions. One way to be efficient while considering
are other differentiators for the full universe of business-relevant human rights is a multistep process that
HRIAs. The HRIA can build uses desk-based research to identify relevant human rights issues and then
on or be integrated with carries out a more in-depth analysis and engagement focused on this short list.
broader socioeconomic
assessments.
In Practice: Teck Resources

Over the past couple of years, BSR has been working with Canadian mining
company Teck Resources to develop a global human rights due diligence
system. To ensure that the HRIA process is embedded in the broader
corporate and site management systems, we worked closely with Teck’s
corporate responsibility and community affairs teams to develop relevant
and tailored HRIA guidance and tools.

4
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Principle 12, www.business-
humanrights.org/Documents/UNGuidingPrinciples.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 8

 We developed a Teck-specific human rights guidance document that
describes human rights in the context of the company’s overarching
strategy and value system and refers to relevant company policies, codes,
and management systems. Then, we worked with Teck to develop a
customized site-level HRIA assessment tool that organizes and describes
human rights indicators in a way that allows site-level staff to implement it.
An instruction manual provides staff further guidance on how to complete
HRIAs on their own with BSR serving only in an advisory capacity.

From pilot assessments at two sites, we gained valuable insight that

allowed us to further customize the tool for Teck’s operations in Canada
and Chile by adjusting the way that the tool’s indigenous peoples’ rights
section feeds into Teck’s corporate-wide indigenous peoples’ rights
strategy. Having participated actively in the HRIAs with BSR, staff at the
pilot sites are now equipped and empowered to serve as internal human
rights leads.

GUIDELINE 2: INTEGRATION
Q: How does an HRIA
Integrating an HRIA into other company processes and systems is critical to
align with a company’s 5
optimizing company resources and embedding human rights principles and due
other standards and
diligence into business operations. In practice integration can be difficult,
policies related to human
especially since human rights issues typically touch upon multiple departments.
rights?
Identifying and taking advantage of opportunities for integration is valuable, but
the degree to which a company can effectively integrate HRIAs varies depending
A: An HRIA should
on their existing due diligence processes and overall organizational structure.
incorporate and reinforce
relevant existing policies
While process integration (embedding an HRIA fully into broader assessment
and standards. An initial
processes) sometimes proves too difficult; data integration, where the HRIA
mapping exercise that
leverages research conducted for a related assessment or vice versa, is always
assesses the company’s
advisable. For example, while conducting a recent HRIA of an energy project, we
current policy commitments
were able to populate many sections of our HRIA tool with important data from
against the full universe of
recent permit applications filed by the company and from public responses filed
potentially relevant human
by community representatives.
rights can help identify gaps
that the HRIA can examine
While we have found that integration is the path to success, it is important to
more closely.
keep in mind the qualities that make an HRIA unique—its scope, the use of
human rights standards and experts, and the consideration of and engagement
with rights holders. Incorporating some human rights questions into a
socioeconomic impact assessment is not sufficient to meet the aims of an HRIA.

5
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Commentary to Principles 17 and 18,
underline the importance of embedding human rights in relevant business processes and also refer
to the option of integrating HRIAs into existing risk management processes. www.business-
humanrights.org/Documents/UNGuidingPrinciples

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 9

 In Practice: Mining Company in Southeast Asia

In 2011, BSR conducted a human rights and security assessment with a

mining company located in a high-risk area during the permitting phase of
its project. This human rights assessment was designed to be a part of the
company’s broader social impact management plan, and thus, integration
into the company’s systems and process was critical to ensuring internal
alignment and maximizing resources. We took a three-prong approach to
integration:

» Analyzed existing data with a human rights lens including ESIA;

baseline data; company policies, plans, and processes; and external
reports and articles. We used human rights instruments, such as the
GPs, as a reference point.
» Incorporated management of risks and opportunities into existing
systems and processes. For this company, we integrated the human
rights assessment process into their risk register, which identifies risks
by department and then consolidates them into a list of the top 10 risks
for their president to manage directly. We then integrated their human
rights and security risks into relevant department risk worksheets.
» Leveraged the company’s existing stakeholder engagement
approach and strengthened existing relationships with
stakeholders by expanding the list of topics discussed to include
human rights: In addition, the HRIA approach helped build relationships
with new stakeholders, including those groups focused on human rights
(e.g., Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and national and
local legal and human rights groups).
» Strengthened internal awareness of how each department can impact
human rights, issues relevant to mining companies, and opportunities
and challenges to integrating human rights concerns into the
department: We worked with the company in their corporate and project
offices for three months. In addition to working with a core team, we
also interviewed more than 30 internal stakeholders and facilitated
workshops with the company’s senior management team to develop
recommendations to minimize risks and maximize opportunities.

Although the assessment approach was designed to be integrated into

existing departments, plans, and processes, we found that it was important
to have one person responsible for guiding the integration of human rights
into department work plans and ensuring internal alignment.

GUIDELINE 3: OWNERSHIP
The GPs emphasize that human rights due diligence should be “ongoing,
recognizing that the human rights risks may change over time as the business
6
enterprise’s operations and operating context evolve.” A mining company, for
example, will face very different human rights risks during construction,
operation, and then closure of a mine. In the information and communications
technology (ICT) sector, the rapid evolution of technology sometimes means that
the human rights risks associated with a specific product change during the
course of an HRIA, as was the case in a recent BSR product-level assessment.

6
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Principle 17, www.business-
humanrights.org/Documents/UNGuidingPrinciples.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 10

Q: My company already The ongoing nature of human rights due diligence requires the company to take
ownership of the HRIA process. Independent human rights experts can help
has a well-established
guide companies through an HRIA and provide an independent perspective,
supplier-auditing
challenge a company’s thinking, and facilitate dialogue with rights holders.
program. What value can However, the company is ultimately responsible for implementing the
an HRIA add beyond what recommendations and ensuring that the HRIA becomes a foundation for ongoing
we are already doing? human rights due diligence. A company should use the HRIA process to build
ownership for human rights within its relevant functions.
A: An HRIA will often
uncover new risks by BSR has learned that the best way to build this ownership is through three
considering a broader elements:
universe of human rights. A » Early and cross-functional engagement: Ownership can best be built
corporate-level HRIA can when representatives from key functions help shape the approach to an
identify risks in other HRIA and are invested in the results—helping create an HRIA process and
aspects of a company’s building awareness internally about how colleagues can contribute to its
operations. Direct success. Forming a cross-functional human rights task force or committee
engagement with rights can help companies strengthen internal engagement in the HRIA.
holders can verify and
improve the quality of » Executive support: HRIAs are most successful when there is early and
information a company ongoing engagement with an executive sponsor. The worst outcome from an
gathers through its auditing HRIA would be a robust assessment by people who are or feel powerless to
program. An HRIA should address its results.
always build on, rather than » Capacity building: Human rights touch most aspects of a company’s
repeat or replace existing operations, yet usually only a few people within a company understand its
auditing processes. responsibility to respect human rights and how this responsibility impacts
their own work. An HRIA should be designed to help build awareness and
capacity internally.

In Practice: Global Telecommunications Company

With greater stakeholder expectations on the telecommunications industry

to understand and manage its impacts on human rights, BSR partnered with
a global telecommunications company to carry out an HRIA of its key
human rights impacts, risks, and opportunities at the corporate level and in
16 key markets. One objective of the HRIA project was to build the capacity
of the company’s country-level staff to conduct ongoing human rights due
diligence. To achieve this goal, the HRIA approach placed a strong
emphasis on local ownership of the assessment process, tools, and
outcomes.

In addition to customizing our HRIA tools for the company, BSR’s role was
to teach local teams how to use the tools, provide country-level support and
guidance to ensure that they gathered results consistently across regions,
challenge the company to think critically about how the direction of its
business would impact human rights, and empower country-level and
corporate-wide implementation of BSR recommendations.

The success of a HRIA with a high level of local ownership depends greatly
on the knowledge of human rights issues and capacity of key in-country
staff. Providing the training and support necessary for local staff to “own”
human rights due diligence was a critical factor in the HRIA’s success.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 11

 GUIDELINE 4: FOCUS
Q: My company is just An effective and efficient HRIA approach begins with a comprehensive view of all
7
getting started on human human rights, but it quickly focuses on the most relevant issues. In line with the
rights. What comes first: GPs, our HRIA framework maps the company’s operations to the full universe of
a human rights policy or potentially relevant rights—but it then gets to the point quickly to maximize
an HRIA? resources and focus on the human rights risks and opportunities that are relevant
to the company. Unlike assessments that aim to identify issues of importance to
A: We recommend the company and stakeholders, an HRIA prioritizes issues that represent risks to
conducting an initial rights holders regardless of whether they also represent a business risk for the
corporate-wide mapping of company.
human rights risks and
opportunities as a first step. While companies need to address all the relevant human rights impacts and risks
The human rights policy identified by the assessment, they can prioritize these if necessary to determine
statement can then where to focus resources initially. Companies should address ongoing
articulate commitments in infringements on human rights as soon as possible and prioritize them based on
the major risk and their severity and “remediability.” In other words, they should prioritize impacts if
8
opportunity areas. Last, you delaying action would affect their ability to remediate. In addition, companies
would conduct in-depth should develop a time line for addressing remaining issues.
HRIAs focused on the high-
risk aspects of your
In Practice: Global Health-Care Company
business.
BSR partnered with a global health-care company based in Europe to
conduct a corporate-level HRIA that involved a three-step approach to
prioritizing the company’s key human rights risks and opportunities.

» Industrywide human rights issues: BSR developed a comprehensive

reference catalogue of the industry-wide existing and potential human
rights risks and opportunities. In doing so, it assessed industry-wide
practices against the universe of human rights contained in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). For example, it
highlighted how the product pricing policies and/or distribution channels
of health-care companies may affect access to health and result in
direct or indirect discrimination.
» Company-specific human rights issues: After identifying the most
relevant issues to the industry, we mapped the issues based on (a) the
likelihood and severity of impact and (b) the company’s specific
operating context. A key differentiator in determining the high/low
impact to rights-holders was whether a given issue had the potential to
result in loss of life or bodily harm. This analysis identified the issues
that posed the greatest risks for rights holders and opportunities for
company leadership. These included human rights issues in four key
business areas: access to health / medicines, clinical trials, patient
safety and pharmaceuticals in the environment.
» Gap analysis: As a next step, we will focus an in-depth assessment on
the company’s management of these most relevant issues to determine
gaps which the company could more effectively manage.

7
For most HRIAs, the baseline universe should be the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic
Social and Cultural Rights, and the ILO Core Conventions. Where relevant, we consider other
conventions as well such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child or the ILO Convention 169
on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights.
8
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Principle 24, www.business-
humanrights.org/Documents/UNGuidingPrinciples.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 12

GUIDELINE 5: RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES
HRIAs uncover key impacts and risks, but they can also identify opportunities to
advance human rights. Although the GPs rightly limit a company’s baseline
responsibility for human rights to non-infringement, we believe that companies
should also seek to understand and maximize opportunities to advance human
rights protections.

Using the research and analysis that HRIAs involve to identify opportunities for
positive impact is an efficient way to use resources to build a more robust human
rights strategy. For example, companies in the ICT industry could use their
technology to help advance such rights as the rights to freedom of expression
and privacy, and health-care companies can contribute to the right to health
through the development and provision of critical medicines and health services.

As noted in the GPs, a company’s commitment to maximize opportunities for

positive impact and contribute to the advancement of human rights does not
offset its failure to respect human rights throughout its operations.

In Practice: Telecommunications Company

In 2012, the Myanmar government announced its intention to put four

mobile communications licenses up for bid. The company announced its
interest in bidding for one of them and, as part of its pre-investment due
diligence in the country, partnered with BSR to conduct an HRIA. Fifty years
of military rule has left Myanmar with crumbling infrastructure, poor
education and health systems, crony capitalism, and underdeveloped
government infrastructure. This situation presents a number of risks to
companies entering the country, but it also contains opportunities for
companies to support social and economic development. This is particularly
true for telecommunications companies who, by increasing connectivity, can
contribute to long-term development goals and support the greater
realization of rights.

For these reasons, this HRIA assessed both risks and opportunities.
Through a combination of desk-based research, workshops, and in-country
interviews, the assessment revealed both risks (such as corruption, unequal
treatment of ethnic minorities, surveillance, and land use rights) and
opportunities (such as freedom of expression, access to health care, and
mobile finance). The final HRIA report identified how the company’s
policies, processes, and management systems should be applied locally to
Myanmar’s unique circumstances and included strategic recommendations
for how the company could make the most effective contribution to social
and economic development, including human rights protections.

GUIDELINE 6: MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT

Engagement with rights holders (those potentially affected by the company’s
operations) often causes the most trepidation for companies in the HRIA
process. In our experience, this trepidation stems from the cost and time
pressures associated with engagement and companies’ fear of discussing
sensitive issues with stakeholders who are critical of the company. However,
engagement with rights holders, a key provision in the GPs, is an effective and
efficient way to identify potential human rights impacts and develop appropriate
remedies.

The approach to engagement will vary by company and by the HRIA’s context
and scope. A social media company, which can have upward of 1 billion users,
BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 13
for instance, cannot define its rights holders by their geographic scope the way a
mining company setting up a project near a remote village can.

For consultation with rights holders and other relevant stakeholders to be

meaningful, companies should build an approach to engagement that begins with
a robust mapping of the landscape of rights holders that takes into account the
local and cultural context. The following are some of the key elements to building
meaningful engagement:

» Participatory process: 1) Ensure that stakeholders are informed about the

context of the engagement in advance and use language they understand, 2)
Promote dialogue, rather than one-way communication, by listening
empathetically with the goal of finding common ground, and 3) Understand
rights holders’ objectives for engaging with the company, and design an
approach to achieve mutual aims.
» Action-oriented content: Give rights holders an opportunity to share their
perceptions, opinions, and knowledge, and be open to adjusting plans based
on this input.
» Follow up and communication: 1) Integrate rights holder inputs into
company decision-making (vs. approaching it as a check-the-box exercise)
and 2) Follow up with rights holders to communicate relevant findings of the
HRIA and resulting actions.

In Practice: HERproject

Engaging rights holders to assess potential and actual human rights

impacts can use many of the tools and tactics applied by other community
and stakeholder engagement strategies, particularly in cases where groups
of vulnerable populations are involved. BSR’s HERproject, which links
multinational companies and their factories to local NGOs to create peer-to-
peer education programs that increase women’s health awareness, offers a
number of valuable lessons for engagement as part of an HRIA.

While there are many common health needs across the eight countries
where HERproject is active, factory workers’ health needs vary depending
on geography, culture, and context. To ensure that the education programs
are aligned with the needs of the workers, HERproject requires a health
needs assessment both before and after the project, which is based on
listening to and engaging with workers.

Developed by HERproject NGO partners and BSR, the health needs

assessment includes around 80 questions, half of which are asked in all
countries. The other questions vary by country. These questions are asked
of 10 percent of the randomized population in a factory ensuring diversity
across business units.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 14

 Three key factors that are part of the program’s design help ensure that the
health needs assessment promotes and respects the rights of workers and
provides high-quality input:

» In-person engagement: BSR strongly encourages that in-person

interviews are carried out with workers to gather perspectives. In most
countries, interviews are carried out one-on-one as part of the first
round of information gathering. Following the interviews, the workers
are engaged in focus groups to validate findings from the interviews.
» Confidentiality: Confidentiality of rights holders is critically important to
ensuring that workers speak openly and honestly about their needs and
risks. There have been cases where the respect for confidentiality has
conflicted with the need to ensure protection for workers when the
interviews reveal human rights violations. In cases of abuse, such as
rape, the interviewer must take specific steps to ensure the abuse is
reported while also respecting the privacy of the individual.
» Skilled and neutral interviewer: BSR requires that interviewers are
independent and have the language skills, knowledge of the factory
context, and an awareness of cultural factors that may affect workers’
willingness to communicate needs.

GUIDELINE 7: TRANSPARENCY
Transparency on a company’s human rights performance is a key component of
9
human rights due diligence as outlined in the GPs. Communicating about the
HRIA process can help build trust with stakeholders and open lines of
communication with communities of rights holders that can help identify problems
before they become human rights infringements.

In the context of conducting an HRIA, transparency is often a major challenge for

companies that are wary of disclosing sensitive information and afraid of drawing
attention to problems. Further, disclosing too much detail about issues they have
identified or stakeholders they have consulted can sometimes put those who
have participated in the engagement at risk. For example, while conducting a
recent HRIA, we uncovered the potential for retaliation against workers who were
interviewed as part of the assessment, which led us to disclose fewer details
about the engagement than we had originally planned to share.

An appropriate level of transparency in most cases includes the disclosure of a

short summary report that includes a description of the HRIA process and
method used along with a summary of high-level findings. In our work conducting
HRIAs, we have found that the more direct engagement the company has with
rights holders and other stakeholders, the less detail is needed for a wider
publication of HRIA findings via the company website or CSR report; key
stakeholders will have already been engaged during the assessment process.

9
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Principle 21, www.business-
humanrights.org/Documents/UNGuidingPrinciples.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 15

 In Practice: Hewlett-Packard

In 2010, Hewlett-Packard (HP) partnered with BSR and the Danish Institute
on Human Rights to carry out an assessment of HP’s human rights risks.
This assessment identified a number of recommendations for how HP could
strengthen its respect for human rights. One tangible output included
revisions to the company’s human rights policy to align with the priorities for
the industry and support better integration of human rights into its
operations and across the business.

To support transparency and to facilitate learning in the industry, HP shares

information about the process and lessons learned from the assessment in
its Corporate Citizenship report and on its website. HP also provides
information about how the company is addressing its key human rights risks
and links to relevant business areas, such as supply chain management,
employee practices, and privacy protection for more in-depth analysis.

Finally, HP shares information about how the assessment led to changes in

the governance of human rights at the company and how its engagement
with stakeholders and collaborative initiatives strengthen its respect for
human rights.

Source: HP Global Citizenship Report 2011, Ethics and Human Rights,

http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/society/ethics.html

GUIDELINE 8: STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

Q: How can an HRIA help
While an HRIA should identify impacts, risks, and opportunities based on a
address cases of conflict
company’s existing business operations, we have learned that an HRIA is most
between local law and
effective when it takes into account where the company is headed, rather than
international human
solely where it has been. An HRIA process that considers the company’s overall
rights standards?
strategic goals can accomplish both tasks. By considering changes at the
company that could affect rights holders, such as a significant expansion or
A: Conflict between local
closure of a particular business, entry into new markets, or a new product launch,
law and international human
an HRIA can offer critical insights to support key business decisions.
rights is one of the most
difficult dilemmas
HRIA results often present companies with complex challenges and dilemmas.
companies face in this
For example, mitigating measures to address an infringement might trigger a new
area. The HRIA process
risk in another area. One company may view entering a difficult market as an
can help identify where
unacceptable risk, while another may see it as a tremendous opportunity to
these conflicts exist, and
advance human rights. Developing a strong point of view on its approach to
uncover ways that the
respecting and advancing human rights will help a company navigate these
company can comply with
difficult decisions.
local law while honoring the
underlying principles of In Practice: Microsoft
human rights, as the GPs
prescribe (See GP 23)
Microsoft has played a key role in shaping the role of ICT companies in
respecting and promoting human rights through its own initiatives and in
collaboration with peers in the Global Network Initiative (GNI) and the
Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC). With the announcement of
the GPs, Microsoft sought to strengthen its human rights approach by
embarking on an HRIA process.

With help from BSR, Microsoft developed a tiered HRIA approach beginning
with a corporate-wide mapping of human rights risks and opportunities and
followed by an inquiry-based assessment that sought to answer questions
of strategic importance for Microsoft’s approach to human rights.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 16

This approach led to the development of Microsoft’s human rights strategy
built on four key principles:

» The power of technology

» A global approach
» The importance of engagement
» Good governance and the rule of law

Based on the results of the corporate-wide HRIA and informed by

Microsoft’s new human rights strategy, we were then able to undertake in-
depth HRIAs of three key product areas, as well as a country-level
assessment.

In this case, the HRIA process served as a key tool for Microsoft to develop
a strong point of view and strategy on human rights and was then
influenced by that same strategy during the later, more in-depth stages.
Aligning the HRIA with the company’s strategy and human rights principles
resulted in clear, actionable recommendations that enabled Microsoft to
manage its risks and maximize its opportunities for positive impact.

Source: Bross, Dan, “Microsoft Did It: Implementing the Guiding Principles
on Business and Human Rights,” BSR Insight, 2012, www.bsr.org/en/our-
insights/bsr-insight-article/how-microsoft-did-it-implementing-the-guiding-
principles-on-business-and-hu.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 17

 HRIA Levels
BSR’s approach to HRIAs includes four different levels: corporate, country, site
and product. They represent an efficient way for a company to identify, prioritize,
and address human rights impacts, risks, and opportunities related to its
operations and business relationships. Companies do not have to complete all
four assessment levels. Rather, each company should identify the levels that
most effectively capture its human rights impacts, risks, and opportunities. The
corporate-wide assessment is typically the first step and helps a company
identify countries, sites, or products that should be subject to a specific in-depth
HRIA.

Figure 1. Overview of HRIA Levels

Q: Who in my company
should be involved in the
corporate-level HRIA?

A: The corporate-wide
mapping should be
overseen by a cross-
functional task force or
existing committee. While
the relevant functions differ
for each sector, they can
include:

» CSR
» Legal
» Human resources
» Ethics and compliance
» Supply chain
» Government affairs
» Community affairs Beyond the corporate assessment, a company should choose assessment levels
» Product development based on the scope of its impacts. A mining company’s greatest impacts on
» Sales and marketing rights holders are likely to occur at its sites, while for a food company certain
sourcing countries could present the highest risks. A telecommunications
» Security company’s greatest risks are typically related to working conditions in the supply
chain, as well as the use of its products and services.

Each company should decide which countries, sites, or products to assess in

more depth. Guidelines 4 on focus and 8 on strategic alignment can help a
company make this determination, while meaningful engagement with rights
holders (Guideline 6) can also provide important insight about where a company
should focus its assessment resources.

CORPORATE-LEVEL HRIA
A corporate-level HRIA maps all of a company’s operations and functions against
all human rights to identify key risks and opportunities and determine where a
more specific, in-depth HRIA is needed at the country, site, or product level. A
corporate-level HRIA also can highlight gaps in the current management system
and provide a framework that the company can use to monitor its impacts over
time. As mentioned above, a corporate HRIA should always consider the rights in

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 18

the International Bill of Rights, which includes the UDHR and its two
10
implementing covenants, and the ILO Core Conventions.

The corporate-wide mapping relies largely on desk-based research and

interviews with key experts. It informs the company’s overarching human rights
strategy and allows it to narrow the broad universe of human rights issues to its
unique list of relevant issues and hot spots for further investigation. It thus
enables the company to focus its time and resources on the most important
aspects of its business and the most relevant issues.

Desk-based research undertaken for a corporate-level HRIA should cast a wide

net and consider a variety of sources, such as:

» Relevant information and data from previous HRIAs and recent social or
environmental assessments
» Stakeholder perspectives and outcomes from recent relevant stakeholder
engagement sessions
» Recent media reports covering the company or relevant industry sectors
» Cases and allegations of human rights infringement against the company or
an industry peer
» Benchmarking of peer companies’ human rights approaches

We also typically conduct a gap analysis of existing policies and processes to

determine how a company’s current management systems are equipped to
address its key human rights risks. A cross-functional workshop to review initial
findings can be an effective way to augment and finalize the corporate-wide
mapping.

COUNTRY-LEVEL HRIA
A country-level HRIA typically builds on a corporate HRIA’s findings to
understand and prioritize human rights issues at a country or market level. The
goal of the country-level assessment is to identify and address specific concerns
in operating countries. In many cases, this assessment informs a company’s
decision about whether and how to enter a new market.

Depending on a company’s overall HRIA process, this module can involve

country visits or can rely heavily on desk-based research using existing data or
indices on the country-level human rights risks and proxy indicators, such as
11
armed conflict, corruption levels, or rule of law.

To help identify impacts, risks, and opportunities specific to the company, a

country-level HRIA typically gathers such contextual information as:

» Legal and regulatory framework governing human rights

» Rule of law and government capacity to enforce relevant laws
» Key stakeholders’ external perception of human rights in a particular country
» Human rights risk drivers, including armed conflict, poverty, and the
availability of natural resources

10
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Principle 12, www.business-
humanrights.org/Documents/UNGuidingPrinciples.
11
Examples include Maplecroft Human Rights Risk Atlas, http://maplecroft.com/themes/hr/, and
World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 19

 In some cases, companies may decide to focus on one or a select number of
countries identified as high risk in the corporate-level HRIA. Another company
may instead focus on high-risk issues across all operating or sourcing countries,
reviewing the relative risk at a fairly high level. For example, BSR has worked
with a food and agriculture company to review key sourcing countries for main
agriculture inputs (e.g., potatoes) with a focus on labor rights protections. An
integrated assessment of human rights issues for specific crops enabled us to
provide a more detailed picture of the relative risks the company faced in each
country and for each crop.

As an example of more in-depth, single-country assessments, we have worked

with companies in the ICT and energy sectors to identify country-level risks and
opportunities and inform market-entry strategies in Myanmar. By focusing on a
particular market, these assessments gained insights through country visits and
interviews with a number of key local stakeholders, human rights advocates, and
business experts.

SITE-LEVEL HRIA
Q: How much time is
A site-level HRIA is designed for a company seeking to identify and address
needed to carry out an
human rights impacts, risks, and opportunities related to a specific operation with
HRIA?
defined boundaries, such as a mine site or a supplier factory.
A: The time it takes to
Companies in the extractives industry often use this approach to assess project
conduct an HRIA varies
level impacts, while apparel, footwear, toy, and electronics companies conduct
greatly and depends on the
factory specific audits. However, companies in all sectors increasingly find value
type of HRIA and the overall
in a site-specific assessment. The individuals and communities close to a site
risk level of the assessed
(from data centers to resorts and theme parks) are those most likely to be
operation. A corporate-wide
impacted, and in the case of massive infrastructure development, those impacts
mapping can take as little
may include infringements on human rights.
as six weeks, a country
level HRIA with a field visit
Any company siting a facility is required by local and/or national law to carry out
could take two to three
certain levels of due diligence to gain regulatory approval. In some cases, such
months, and an in-depth
as for an EIA, due diligence may include human rights aspects. As a result,
HRIA of a high-risk mine
integrating an HRIA into other processes is important for an effective site-level
site could take six months
HRIA. Local teams and headquarters should coordinate to ensure that they are
to a year from beginning
aligned both in terms of the HRIA process and in terms of taking action on the
desk-based research to
results.
completing the final
assessment report. Timing
In a recent HRIA of an energy project in the planning phase, we were able to rely
of site visits and
on a significant amount of data from the recently completed ESIA and from
stakeholder engagement
official communications filed by community groups as part of the regulatory
can have a major impact on
approval process. Having all this readily available data made the collection
the overall time line.
process for the HRIA much easier and faster, allowing us to focus resources on
the most relevant risks.

Gaining a solid understanding of the local context, including socioeconomic

aspects of communities whose rights a project could affect, is a critically
important part of a site-level HRIA. To achieve this, the HRIA includes interviews
with key staff at the site, as well as external stakeholders.

PRODUCT-LEVEL HRIA
For many companies, the most significant human rights impacts, risks, and
opportunities arise through the use of their products and services instead of in
their operations. Companies, such as those in software, telecommunications,
consumer electronics, consumer products, manufacturing, and pharmaceuticals,
whose products and services present risks and/or opportunities to users or other
rights holders should consider product-level HRIAs. A product-level assessment

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 20

identifies human rights impacts of products that can be used for beneficial
12
purposes but can also be misused in a way that infringes on human rights.

The product-level HRIA emphasizes a deep dive into understanding design

processes, user communities, and the legal and human rights context in regions
where the products are used. In particular, our approach to product-level HRIAs
focuses on:
» Services: The services associated with the product. In most cases, the
services (e.g., text messaging) enabled by the product should be the focus of
the assessment instead of the product (e.g., a telephone).
» Partners: Partners in the design, development, and distribution of the
product or service, including customers who may present complicity risks or
partners who could help maximize the positive impact of the product or
service. Some of the biggest human rights risks can occur when a product is
delivered through a business partner.
» Location: Impacts associated with specific locations and jurisdictions
including the legal and regulatory context. Some human rights impacts may
be heightened by the location where the products are sold or used.
The role of the end user adds an important layer of complexity to a product-level
HRIA, particularly for the ICT industry. Whether exposing human rights abuses
online, using the internet as a platform for political discourse, or having privacy
rights violated, the end user plays a particularly significant role in the human
rights impact of ICT.

Moreover, end users are increasingly innovating with ICT products and services
in unexpected ways that may be beyond a company’s control. In such cases,
companies are encouraged to prioritize the relatively few high-risk users, such as
human rights defenders and political activists, as the biggest human rights
impacts can reside in a very small subset of product users.

When companies undertake product-level HRIAs, the speed of innovation is

often a major challenge. For example, for a recent HRIA of a software product,
the underlying technology of the product changed significantly during the
assessment, presenting a very different human rights risk profile. For this reason,
we typically recommend assessing product categories, rather than individual
products, and to use lessons learned from existing product categories to apply a
13
human rights lens during the design phase of new products.

12
Institute for Human Rights and Business and Global Business Initiative, “State of Play: The
Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights in Business Relationships,”
13
BSR, “Applying the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to the ICT Industry, Version
2.0,” www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Guiding_Principles_and_ICT_2.0.pdf, p. 9.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 21

 Steps
Each HRIA has four key steps: Immersion, Mapping, Prioritization, and
Management. The depth and breadth of the activities and the types of tools used
vary by HRIA-level and are customized to the company context. Engagement
with rights holders, a critical component of every HRIA, can support each step
and often takes place at multiple steps in the process.

Figure 2. Overview of HRIA Levels and Steps

As noted above, most companies should start with a corporate-level HRIA to

understand their key human rights risks and opportunities and identify whether
and where they should perform a specific HRIA at the country, site or product
level.

In planning for an HRIA at any level, a company should answer these key
Q: Is it possible to questions:
conduct an HRIA with
limited financial » Which functions, regional offices, and individuals in the company
resources?
should be involved in the assessment process?
A: Yes. The tiered approach » How can and should they be involved? What aspects of the process can
outlined in this report can be led internally, and where should outside consultants/experts be involved?
help focus limited resources » When should the HRIA take place? Are there suspected impacts that need
on the most important immediate attention? Are there key milestones, such as a citizenship report
impact areas. Close publication date, that should be considered as part of the time line? Are there
collaboration among major internal conferences that could be leveraged for a cross-functional
company staff and external workshop or internal interviews?
advisors on the HRIA can
» What existing tools, recent assessments, or stakeholder engagement
further reduce costs while
sessions should the HRIA leverage? What other data is available to use in
building internal capacity at
the assessment, and where are there gaps?
the company to conduct
HRIAs with less external
help in the future. STEP 1: IMMERSION
The first step in our HRIA approach is to gain a robust understanding of the
general business and human rights context. This requires human rights experts
to immerse in the company context and the company to immerse itself in human
rights to understand local, national, and international human rights standards and

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 22

expectations. Some of the key questions the human rights experts will seek to
answer include the following (the questions vary depending on the HRIA level):

» What is the company’s overall business strategy?

» Which aspects of the company’s business are expected to grow, and which
could decline?
» How are relevant decisions made in the company, and who makes them?
» What leverage does the company have over relevant business partners?
» Who are the company’s key customers?
» What are the company’s key product lines?
» How and where does the company operate?

To answer these and other questions, we carry out interviews with experts and
key functional, department, or regional leaders and review existing policies,
procedures, and relevant information about operations to better understand how
each business area could positively or negatively impact human rights.

STEP 2: MAPPING
The second step aims to identify the most relevant human rights issues for the
company by mapping the real and perceived intersection points with human
rights across the business. This step helps companies narrow the long list of
human rights issues to those that the company could impact and identify hot
spots in the company’s business activities, such as particular regions, operations,
or product categories that are the most vulnerable to human rights risks or best
positioned to have a positive impact. For a site-level assessment, the mapping
will look different for each site.

BSR has developed a mapping tool based on the International Bill of Rights, the
ILO conventions and, in some cases, other international human rights standards.

STEP 3: PRIORITIZATION
This next step aims to help companies prioritize human rights risks. While
companies should address all impacts and risks, limited resources and complex
networks of business relationships may require them to determine the order in
which they should address the identified issues. As noted above in Guideline 4,
the GPs state that companies should consider the severity and remediability of
14
impacts when determining which impact to address first.

A company can prioritize human rights opportunities, which extend beyond its
baseline responsibility to avoid infringement, based on its business and
sustainability strategies and its ability to maximize positive impact. Those
opportunities that are closely tied to the company’s core competencies should, in
most cases, be at the top of the list.

STEP 4: MANAGEMENT
HRIAs should not only identify existing impacts and risks but also help anticipate
future trends and provide clear, actionable, and business-relevant
recommendations that will ultimately result in greater protection of human rights.
This last step aims to help companies build a robust approach to managing
human rights risks and opportunities by remediating existing impacts and

14
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Principle 24, www.business-
humanrights.org/Documents/UNGuidingPrinciples.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 23

strengthening key elements of a company’s policies and processes, internal and
external communications, and stakeholder engagement.

When developing recommendations from an HRIA, a company should clearly

differentiate between its baseline responsibility to avoid negative impacts and its
opportunities to go further and maximize positive impacts. In addition to
addressing human rights impacts uncovered during the HRIA, recommended
actions can range from putting a formal human rights policy in place to pursuing
more in-depth engagement with rights holders on specific aspects of the
business to developing key performance indicators related to human rights and
linking individual incentives to progress in addressing the HRIA’s findings.

The following tables provide an overview of what these four steps typically entail
for each of the four HRIA levels.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 24

Corporate Level
Steps Activities Engagement

Step 1: Immersion  Review company strategy and relevant policies Carry out internal interviews
Build human rights experts’ and processes. with key departments (e.g.,
knowledge of the business  Review recent human rights disclosures and human resources, purchasing,
and the company’s results from relevant assessments and product development, etc.) to
knowledge of human rights engagements. hone in on the human rights
issues and expectations.  Benchmark industry peers. issues that are likely to be
 Form a cross-functional task force to lead the relevant to the company.
HRIA.
 Align expectations and knowledge of process
internally, possibly through human rights training
for key company leaders.

Step 2: Mapping  Customize a human rights mapping tool for the Conduct external interviews
Identify the most relevant company’s context and objectives. with key stakeholders and
human rights issues for the  Determine the organizing framework for mapping experts to verify results.
company by mapping the (i.e., by business line, region, and value chain
real and perceived step).
intersection points with  Conduct a media search, including cases and
human rights across all allegations against the company or peer
operations. companies.
 Map the operations against the full universe of
potentially relevant human rights issues to
identify risk and opportunity areas.

Step 3: Prioritization  Prioritize the relevant human rights risks Share a summary of findings
Prioritize human rights risks identified in Step 2 based on risk to rights from external interviews with
and opportunities to holders, using likelihood, scale, severity, and company participants.
determine where the remediability.
company should focus  Rank opportunities based on the company’s
resources (note that all overall strategic goals and ability to have an
impacts and risks should be impact.
addressed).
Step 4: Management  Conduct a gap analysis of current policies and  Share high-level HRIA
Build a robust approach to processes based on the priorities identified in findings with key
addressing impacts, Step 3. stakeholders and experts.
managing risks, and  Strengthen the current management system  Gain input from key
maximizing opportunities by based on the gap analysis results. stakeholders and experts
strengthening the company’s  Draft a human rights strategy based on the most about the new human
human rights strategy, important risks and opportunities. rights strategy.
policies, processes, and  Develop action plans to further investigate
engagement. identified issues, including through in-depth
HRIAs.
 Build an ongoing due diligence process.
 Develop a plan to raise awareness and build
capacity internally.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 25

Country Level
Steps Activities Engagement

Step 1: Immersion  Study the specific country and local human  Carry out internal interviews in
Build human rights experts’ rights context to develop an initial view of the countries to identify potential
knowledge of the business risks and opportunities. human rights issues arising
and the company’s  Review the national and local regulatory from company activities.
knowledge of human rights environment.  Engage with international and
issues and expectations.  Review relevant internal and third-party regional stakeholders with
country reports and assessments. relevant expertise to assess
 Review the nature and scale of current perceptions of risk and
operations and/or prospective investment opportunity.
impact in the country.

Step 2: Mapping  Consult key company functions in issues that Engage local stakeholders with
Identify the most relevant present challenges to policy compliance. expertise on key human rights
human rights issues for the  Conduct a media search on risk factors and risks and opportunities.
company by mapping the human rights issues, cases, and allegations Stakeholders include rights
real and perceived relevant to the sector. holders, national and local
intersection points with  Map existing or planned activities that could governments, local civil society
human rights across all impact human rights in the local context. organizations, local businesses
operations.  Develop impact assessment questionnaires and chambers of commerce,
and stakeholder interview guides. local communities, and local
 Identify at least one key stakeholder for each business partners.
major issue.
 Integrate the information available about
country-level risks from reputable research
organizations or government statistics
agencies.
Step 3: Prioritization  Assess identified risks based on their Share a summary of your
Prioritize human rights risks likelihood, scale, severity, and remediability, interview findings with
and opportunities to considering existing and planned operations participants.
determine where the and the country context.
company should focus  Hold a workshop to discuss preliminary
resources (note that all findings internally and assess any material
impacts and risks should be connection to planned investment.
addressed).
Step 4: Management  Conduct a gap assessment of current policies  Identify local partners that
Build a robust approach to to assess the company’s ability to manage can assist with mitigation
addressing impacts, risks. measures and programs.
managing risks, and  Develop a market engagement strategy  Develop an executive
maximizing opportunities by based on the most important issues and the summary for public disclosure
strengthening the company’s company’s ability to manage them, drawing with stakeholders.
human rights strategy, on existing strengths and addressing existing  Engage stakeholders in the
policies, processes, and weaknesses and vulnerabilities. country on your findings and
engagement.  Identify mitigation measures for each risk, solicit recommendations.
strategic opportunities across multiple risk
areas, and systemic issues that need to be
addressed collaboratively.
 Identify existing and proposed programs that
can help the company manage risks.
 Categorize mitigation measures and
recommendations into policies, capacity
building, programs, and engagement.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 26

Site Level
Steps Activities Engagement

Step 1: Immersion  Create a cross-functional human rights task force  Identify internal business
Build human rights experts’ or steering committee at the site. leads and legitimate
knowledge of the business  Review the nature and scale of current representatives of rights
and the company’s operations. holders for engagement.
knowledge of human rights  Identify and review current internal policies and  Engage internal
issues and expectations. external commitments (e.g., voluntary principles). stakeholders on human
 Understand the existing assessment systems rights through discussions
and data collection practices. or formal training.
 Review recent stakeholder and community
engagement outcomes.
 Study the specific community and local human
rights context to develop an initial view of the
risks and opportunities.

Step 2: Mapping  Review recent relevant assessments, including  Interview site-level

Identify the most relevant country- and site-level assessments, such as business leads about
human rights issues for the ESIAs or audit results. potential human rights
company by mapping the  Conduct a media search on relevant human risks.
real and perceived rights issues, cases, and allegations related to  Engage with legitimate
intersection points with the site or to similar business activity in the representatives of
human rights across all region. potentially affected
operations.  Collaborate with the site-level leads to populate communities and local
the HRIA tool to map the relevant issues based stakeholders and experts.
on their significance and source (e.g., project,
contractor, etc.).

Step 3: Prioritization  Analyze the populated HRIA tool to identify Conduct an internal workshop
Prioritize human rights risks existing and potential human rights impacts. to review your findings and
and opportunities to  Prioritize impacts and risks based on their scale, prioritize risks and
determine where the remediability, and likelihood. opportunities.
company should focus
resources (note that all
impacts and risks should be
addressed).

Step 4: Management  Develop action plans to address specific  Conduct an internal

Build a robust approach to impacts, risks, and opportunities. workshop to review
addressing impacts,  Integrate HRIA findings into existing policies, recommendations.
managing risks, and management systems, and work plans.  Conduct training on
maximizing opportunities by  Introduce new policies and systems, including priority issues for key site-
strengthening the company’s grievance mechanisms, to mitigate risks. level staff.
human rights strategy,  Develop and implement human rights trainings.  Share high-level findings
policies, processes, and  Monitor ongoing human rights performance. with stakeholders.
engagement.  Institutionalize human rights management and
ongoing due diligence within site-level
governance.
 Apply lessons to your corporate human rights
strategy and policies.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 27

Product Level
Steps Activities Engagement

Step 1: Immersion  Review public information (e.g., websites, terms of Interview key company staff
Build human rights experts’ use, published reports, etc.) to become familiar with in engineering, public
knowledge of the business the product or service, its underlying technology, policy, government affairs,
and the company’s and its functionality. sales and marketing, legal
knowledge of human rights  Meet with key company staff to augment desk- affairs, etc.
issues and expectations. based research on the product or service.
 Educate key company staff on human rights, the
company’s responsibility to avoid infringement, and
key concepts, such as leverage and complicity.
 Review relevant external stakeholder perspectives,
such as those found in reports and campaign
literature and on websites.

Step 2: Mapping Analyze the human rights impacts, risks, and Interview external
Identify the most relevant opportunities of the product or service across three stakeholders and experts,
human rights issues for the important dimensions over a 10-year timeframe: especially those familiar
company by mapping the  Services: The services associated with the product, with and able to speak on
real and perceived regardless of business partners or geography. behalf of high-risk users, or
intersection points with (where possible) users
 Partners: Partners in the design, development, and
human rights across all themselves.
distribution of the product or service, including
operations.
customers who may present complicity risks or
partners who could help maximize the technology’s
positive impact.
 Location: Impacts associated with the specific
locations and jurisdictions, including the legal and
regulatory context.

Step 3: Prioritization  Identify the most significant human rights risks and Share high-level findings of
Prioritize human rights risks opportunities arising from the product or service. the HRIA with stakeholders,
and opportunities to  Develop conclusions that are forward looking, and for example, through an
determine where the incorporate the uncertainties that can arise from the executive summary report
company should focus often rapid and unpredictable nature of a product or for publication on the
resources (note that all service development over time, for example, by company’s website.
impacts and risks should be focusing on categories of products.
addressed).

Step 4: Management  Assess priorities against existing policies and Engage stakeholders and
Build a robust approach to management systems to identify any gaps. experts on the HRIA’s
addressing impacts,  Develop forward-looking recommendations that set findings.
managing risks, and out key policies, processes, operations, activities,
maximizing opportunities by etc., that the company can enact to mitigate human
strengthening the company’s rights risk and maximize human rights opportunities.
human rights strategy,  Categorize recommendations, for example, by
policies, processes, and whether they are short, medium, or long term and
engagement. by policy, process, and operations.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 28

Resources
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS

International Labour Organization, Declaration on Fundamental Principles and

Rights at Work, 1998,
www.ilo.org/declaration/thedeclaration/textdeclaration/lang--en/index.htm.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966,

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx.

International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, 1966,

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948,

www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND BUSINESS BACKGROUND

Bader, Christine, “UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights:

Analysis and Implementation,” The Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University,
2012, http://kenan.ethics.duke.edu/humanrights/resources/u-n-guiding-principles-
on-business-and-human-rights

Portal on the UN Guiding Principles at the Business and Human Rights Resource
Centre, http://www.business-humanrights.org/UNGuidingPrinciplesPortal/Home

Officer of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “The Corporate

Responsibility to Respect Human Rights: An Interpretive Guide,” 2012,
www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/Tools.aspx.

UN Special Representative for Business and Human Rights, “Protect, Respect,

and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights,” 2008,
www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf.

UN Special Representative for Business and Human Rights, “Guiding Principles

on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect,
Respect, and Remedy’ Framework,” 2011, www.business-
humanrights.org/media/documents/ruggie/ruggie-guiding-principles-21-mar-
2011.pdf.

HRIA GUIDANCE

Aim for Human Rights, “Guide to Corporate Human Rights Impact Assessment
Tools,”
www.humanrightsimpact.org/fileadmin/hria_resources/Business_centre/HRB_Bo
oklet_2009.pdf.

Dan Bross, “How Microsoft Did It: Implementing the Guiding Principles on
Business and Human Rights,” BSR Insight, 2012, www.bsr.org/en/our-
insights/bsr-insight-article/how-microsoft-did-it-implementing-the-guiding-
principles-on-business-and-hu.

BSR, “Engaging with Free, Prior, and Informed Consent,” 2012,

www.bsr.org/en/our-insights/report-view/engaging-with-free-prior-and-informed-
consent.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 29

BSR, “Human Rights Training and Engagement Guide,”
www.bsr.org/files/BSR_Human_Rights_Training_and_Engagement_Guide.pdf.

BSR, “IAMGOLD: Integrating Human Rights Management throughout the

Business,” case study, 2011, www.bsr.org/en/our-insights/case-study-
view/iamgold-integrating-human-rights-management-throughout-the-business.

Danish Institute of Human Rights, “Human Rights Compliance Assessment:

Quick Check,”
www.humanrightsbusiness.org/compliance+assessment/hrca+quick+check.

Dunstan Allison Hope, Farid Baddache, and Faris Natour, “Applying the Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights to the ICT Industry, Version 2.0: Ten
Lessons Learned,” BSR, 2012, www.bsr.org/en/our-insights/report-view/applying-
the-guiding-principles-on-business-and-human-rights-to-the-ict-ind.

Dunstan Allison Hope, “Protecting Human Rights in the Digital Age,” BSR, 2011,
www.bsr.org/en/our-insights/report-view/protecting-human-rights-in-the-digital-
age.

Institute for Human Rights and Business, “The ‘State of Play’ of Human Rights
Due Diligence,” 2010,
www.ihrb.org/pdf/The_State_of_Play_of_Human_Rights_Due_Diligence.pdf.

Institute for Human Rights and Business, “The State of Play: The Corporate
Responsibility to Respect Human Rights in Business Relationships,” 2012,
www.ihrb.org/publications/reports/state-of-play.html.

International Finance Corporation, UN Global Compact, and International

Business Leaders Forum, “Guide to Human Rights Impact Assessment and
Management,” 2010,
www1.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/if
c+sustainability/publications/publications_handbook_hria__wci__1319577931868

IPIECA, “Human Rights Due Diligence Process: A Practical Guide to

Implementation for Oil and Gas Companies,” 2012,
www.ipieca.org/publication/human-rights-due-diligence-process-practical-guide-
implementation-oil-and-gas-companies.

Maplecroft, “Human Rights Risk Tools,” www.maplecroft.com.

NomaGaia, “Methodology for Human Rights Impact Assessment,” 2010,

www.nomogaia.org/HRIA/Entries/2011/1/1_A_Methodology_for__Human_Rights
_Impact_Assessment_files/Methodology%20for%20HRIA%202.0.pdf .

Chloë Poynton, “Five Best Practices in Human Rights Reporting,” BSR Insight,
2012, www.bsr.org/en/our-insights/blog-view/five-best-practices-in-human-rights-
reporting.

UN Global Compact, Human Rights and Business Dilemmas Forum,

http://human-rights.unglobalcompact.org/.

UN Special Representative for Business and Human Rights, “Human Rights

Impact Assessments— Resolving Key Methodological Questions,” February 5,
2007, www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-report-human-rights-impact-
assessments-5-Feb-2007.pdf.

BSR | Conducting an Effective Human Rights Impact Assessment 30