From early warnings to controversy data, investors and lenders are increasingly recognizing their reliance on civil society and human rights defenders for their human rights due diligence (for more see No News is Bad News, the product of a collaboration between ABN AMRO, APG, ING, Robeco, and Morningstar Sustainalytics). This includes the essential insights they provide on salient human rights issues that are material impacts in client portfolios (e.g. for CSRD) include those impacts on people related to climate change and biodiversity loss – to which banks are connected through their financing of clients and transactions.
Also Read
July 2023 |
Indigenous Rights and Financial Institutions: Free, Prior and Informed Consent, Just Transition and Emerging Practice
So, what role can – and should – financial institutions play in addressing shrinking civic space? In our latest Financial Institutions Practitioners Circle report, Human Rights Defenders and Shrinking Civic Space: A Guide for Financial Institutions, we explore key aspects of this challenge, including how banks can start to overcome the barriers they may face when engaging with civil society and human rights defenders.
The ISSB has proposed that two of the four options for inclusion in its agenda priorities for the next two years could be ‘human capital’ and ‘human rights’: both social-related topics. This is an important and welcome signal, which in turn reflects the significance of these issues to the interests of investors. In light of regulatory and legislative developments related to human rights due diligence, this interest in reporting on social-related issues is set to continue increasing at a rapid rate.
Shift therefore strongly endorses the need for the ISSB to include within its near-term agenda research work that would lead towards a standard on social-related financial disclosures.
This submission to the ISSB’s public consultation sets out the key challenges with addressing social issues through its proposed approach, including the difficulties arising from its proposed categorization of ‘human capital’ and ‘human rights’. It proposes an alternative approach that would focus instead on the development of a cross-cutting social standard that would align with the ISSB’s stated objectives by:
encompassing issues relevant to both human capital and human rights, avoiding any need to draw boundaries between them, and without needing to address the specific topics they cover in detail,
meeting the most essential needs of the providers of capital regarding material social-related issues by enabling them to assess the extent to which any company is equipped in its core governance, strategy and risk management to identify and manage social-related risks in its operations and value chains
establishing the global, foundational building blocks for reporting on social issues, following much the same approach as the ISSB Climate standard S2: mirroring the structure of standard S1 on General Requirements, but extending beyond its content by addressing significant factors particular to social-related issues
being coherent and interoperable with the existing European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) on social issues, including by providing a common understanding of the relevant architecture of social-related topics in sustainability reporting
providing a resource-efficient project that the ISSB could reasonably undertake in its immediate work plan, being (a) broader but less granular than either of the two proposed projects, (b) able to leverage substantial existing resources including the international standards on human rights due diligence and the ISSB’s own CDSB Framework for Reporting Environmental and Social Information.
The submission sets out the detailed rationale for this approach, the benefits it would bring and the resources on which it could draw.
The fields of ‘business and human rights’ and ‘human and social capital’ address the management and measurement of business impacts on people – but there is often confusion about where these approaches overlap and where they diverge.
This is partially due to their distinct starting points: the field of ‘business and human rights’ is founded on the proposition that all companies have a responsibility to respect the human rights of people affected by their operations, products and services – this is articulated in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and reflected in a range of other standards. The field of ‘Social and human capital’ is part of the ‘capitals approach’ to decision-making which is grounded in the principle that natural capital, social capital, human capital and produced capital form the foundation of human wellbeing and economic success. By understanding how they impact and depend on the capitals, companies are supported to make holistic decisions that create value for nature, people and society alongside businesses and the economy.
In this paper, Shift and the Capitals Coalition set out the key similarities and differences between the two approaches and outline how they can be applied together to inform business decision-making. This includes a closer look at terminology, outcomes and impacts, and their shared focus on people.
Shift’s series of primers on the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) is for everyone and anyone tasked with putting the standards into practice – whether you’re working within a company, or advising one. The Standards are designed to ensure greater rigor, completeness and comparability in companies’ reporting on their sustainability performance across environmental (including climate), social (primarily human rights) and governance issues, in line with the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). We hope this series supports the coherent interpretation and robust implementation of the standards that will unlock high-quality reporting on sustainability.
As a ‘co-construction’ partner in the early development of the ESRS, and with our Director of Business Engagement, David Vermijs, sitting on the Sustainability Reporting Board (EFRAG) that guided the process, we are glad to be able to help demystify the standards for practitioners.
The need for guidance
The ESRS are set to apply to more than 50,000 companies in the EU and at least 10,000 companies outside. To say the advent of the standards has generated a flurry of activity would be an understatement; companies are now bringing together parts of their organizations that rarely met before – finance and internal audit, compliance and legal, environmental teams and human rights specialists. There are questions about who should lead and whether and how these different experts might work together to apply the standards. And many companies are spending significant amounts of money on hiring consultants to guide them through the process.
So it’s understandable that we’re already seeing a proliferation of interpretations of the standards. The ESRS are hardly drafted in the most accessible terms – indeed, it seems to be the fate of many reporting (and other) standards, to be unhelpfully technical and complex in ways that risk undermining their actual intent.
In addition, consultants are often inclined to interpret standards in ways that best suit the methodologies they are used to applying with their clients. Selective interpretations can come into play as part of a desire to fit these advisory engagements into ‘business as usual’. Indeed, there are cases where internal company experts familiar with key aspects of the ESRS have had to correct their consultants on what they know to be faulty advice. But many more companies lack the in-house expertise to tell the difference.
Clarity is greatly needed. The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG), which was responsible for drafting the standards, will be developing some key guidance over the coming weeks and months; Shift team members David Vermijs and Michelle Langlois will be supporting this process, which will hopefully go some way to addressing gaps in understanding and preventing misinterpretation.
In the meantime, we hope this series of primers will help to answer some of the most frequently asked questions we hear on key aspects of the standards, with a particular focus on social issues and their connections with international standards on human rights due diligence. The series will cover: “double materiality” – and the links between impact materiality and “salient human rights issues”; the novel people-centered architectureof theSocial standard; the risk-based approach to identifying material impacts in the “value chain”; and much more.
Bridging the gap between action and reporting
Why are we doing this? Becauseinterpretation matters. It is no accident that the ESRS align closely with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises – the international standards of conduct on corporate respect for human rights. This ensures that reporting requirements tally with international expectations of how companies identify and address risks to people in their operations and value chains.
Too often, that connection between action and reporting on sustainability has been tenuous – whether that’s because non-financial reporting has been seen by companies as a PR side-show; or because the data demanded of companies has failed to either reflect or support good management of sustainability risks and impacts.
Sustainability reporting should be a natural extension of action – to ensure the authenticity of insights provided to shareholders and other stakeholders, and to ensure that the data being gathered is of value for internal managers. It is this relationship that turns the costs of reporting into an investment in effective risk management. If a hundred interpretations of the ESRS now emerge, that prize will be lost.
The coming months and years will be a litmus test for whether the ESRS can re-solidify this relationship between action and reporting on sustainability matters, including on material social issues that have too long been ignored or downplayed. If not, this pioneering European initiative will in good part have failed. Now is the time to make sure that it succeeds. We hope that this series of primers can help you play a part in helping ensure that it does.
Companies, civil society and the finance sector are paying increasing attention to Indigenous Peoples rights and expertise, which are critical in the context of our most pressing global agenda items: climate change and biodiversity loss. This is not least because much of the world’s biodiversity, and many of the natural resources needed for the energy transition, are located on indigenous territories. However, recent events, from the Dakota Access Pipeline protests to the Juukan Gorge disaster, demonstrate that prevailing approaches to identifying and managing the impacts of business on Indigenous Peoples are falling short. That is, businesses are failing to meet their responsibility to respect indigenous rights under international standards.
Also Read
September 2023 |
Human Rights Defenders and Shrinking Civic Space: A Guide for Financial Institutions
Financial institutions (FIs) are critical players in the value chains associated with impacts – both positive and negative – on Indigenous People. With the rapid scale-up of financing for transition minerals and growing awareness of the need for nature-based solutions, FIs must ensure both they and their clients understand and respect Indigenous People’s rights – which includes ensuring that clients obtain “free, prior and informed consent” (FPIC) when developing projects on indigenous lands. Without FPIC, project owners and their financiers face the prospect of conflict, reputational damage, lengthy delays and project cancellations, as well as a failure to meet international standards.
Overcoming Key Challengesto FPIC
In December 2022, Shift held a Financial Institutions Practitioners Circle (FIs Circle) on Indigenous Peoples rights. Two expert contributors, Lloyd Lipsett and Mark Podlasly, shared their insights from decades of experience working with Indigenous Peoples interfacing with development on their lands. Together, we fielded some of the burning questions financial institutions are grappling with as they finance clients with projects or value chains connected to indigenous territories:
What do FIs need to know when there are differing views on whether a community is “indigenous”?
How can FIs determine what “good” Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) processes look like?
What steps should FIs take when supplied with limited or poor-quality information on respect for indigenous rights by their clients?
How can FIs spot – and address – power imbalances between clients and Indigenous People?
This paper captures key takeaways from the session, focusing on the responsibility to obtain and maintain FPIC. This focus reflects the importance of FPIC as a process to safeguard Indigenous Peoples rights to self-determination, to participation, and to their lands, territories and resources.
Starting in 2022, the European Union has been negotiating a draft Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CS3D), with discussions on a final law expected to begin by mid-2023. The draft Directive aims to ensure companies active in the single European market contribute to sustainable development by preventing and addressing negative human rights and environmental impacts.
How can we ensure the directive delivers for people and planet?
While the new duty will only apply to certain companies headquartered or operating in the single market, their business partners and other companies in key sourcing and production markets outside the EU will have an essential role to play. Our report is based on interviews with businesses and other stakeholders in Bangladesh, Kenya, Tanzania, and Thailand on the challenges and opportunities facing local companies in meeting their EU business partners’ human rights and environmental expectations, and in preventing and addressing human rights impacts in their operations.
The report looks at some of the current dynamics between EU companies and their non-EU business partners in managing human rights risks, and explores the opportunity the Directive presents to shift from a top-down ‘policing’ approach to one based on collaboration and mutual responsibility, in line with the international standards. It aims to bring the perspectives of companies in key markets into the current debate to provide vital insights into the kinds of practices and behaviors that should be incentivized in the new Directive – and those that should be discouraged – if we truly want it to deliver better outcomes for people and planet.
This report is divided into two main sections:
Section B, What did we hear? provides an overview of current behaviors and practices that are often not conducive to meaningful human rights due diligence.
Section C contains two parts:
What is different about the international standards? benchmarks some of the problematic practices encountered against the international due diligence standards. It highlights what would signal more meaningful due diligence approaches, as compared to those that currently seem to dominate many of the relationships between EU companies and their business partners.
What is the opportunity? underscores the potential for the CS3D to define a carefully crafted due diligence duty that incentivizes a shift towards practices that are more aligned with meaningful due diligence.
This research is part of a project funded by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden.
At Shift, we have worked for several years with a wide range of financial institutions and their stakeholders seeking to embed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) into their practice, as well as supporting the integration of the UNGPs into the work and tools of various financial industry associations and initiatives. One of our areas of focus has been defining and operationalizing the concept of the ‘remedy ecosystem’ and the important role financial institutions can play in enabling remedy, including in the context of the innovative Dutch Banking Sector Agreement.
From March through April 2022, Shift supported the initial conversations of the IFC/MIGA interdepartmental Working Group on IFC/MIGA’s approach to remedial action by providing initial scoping and research on remedy as reflected in the UNGPs. IFC/MIGA subsequently carried out further analysis and then developed and published a proposed “Approach to Remedial Action” for public consultation. We are pleased to make this submission to that consultation.
We recognize that this is an extremely important topic for IFC/MIGA to be tackling in terms of its potential to deliver meaningful outcomes for people in connection with IFC/MIGA’s own investments and also in the signals that such an approach can send to other financial institutions, particularly national and regional development finance institutions.
IFC/MIGA’s proposed “Approach to Remedial Action” (the Approach) references extensively the concepts of the remedy ecosystem and enabling remedy. On the positive side, we note with appreciation that the Approach considers “prospective and anticipatory measures” throughout the project cycle that could lessen the need for and/or increase preparedness for remedy. However, the Approach is grounded in an assumption that IFC/MIGA’s involvement in remedy will typically take, absent “exceptional circumstances”, the primary form of “facilitating or supporting” its clients’ provision of remedy.
The Centrality of the Connection to Harm Analysis to Concepts of Enabling Remedy
The Remedy Ecosystem and Enabling Remedy
The Relevance of Proximity to Harm?
We hope that the IFC/MIGA will draw on this, and other feedback, to reorient the core elements of the Approach to align more fully with the existing International Standards and developing practice among other financial institutions.
This paper explores the nexus between climate change strategy and action by financial institutions (FIs) and the responsibility to respect human rights in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs).
It discusses a series of pitfalls for financial institutions to avoid as they operationalize climate-related commitments and explore the social (“S”) dimensions of the challenges and opportunities presented by the activities of portfolio companies. It explores how the human rights lens of the UNGPs – complemented by over a decade of practice since their endorsement – can inform efforts to ensure transition and adaptation efforts respect peoples’ dignity.
Part 1 provides an overview of the causes and main drivers of climate change, explains why the 1.5°C and 2°C targets are important and why limiting climate change cannot be postponed.
Part 2 explains the relevance of the Paris Accord targets and highlights the scenarios used in the most recent IPCC reports and their relevance.
Part 3 explains the impact that climate change may have on businesses, the concept and relevance of net zero targets and greenhouse gas accounting.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're OK with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
