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.
About the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive
Beginning in 2017, several European states including France, Germany and the Netherlands began to adopt versions of human rights due diligence legislation. This created momentum for the European Union (EU) to help level the playing field.
In 2022, the EU began negotiating a draft Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D) which was finally adopted in May 2024. During this time, Shift’s focus was on ensuring the CS3D was anchored in the international standards on sustainability due diligence – the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Despite limitations with regard to the scope of companies covered under the Directive, and limited obligations with regard to due diligence on downstream impacts, the core content of the final law is substantially aligned with the UNGPs. This will help make sure the Directive is positioned to advance outcomes for people and planet by scaling uptake of quality human rights and environmental due diligence and enhancing corporate accountability for due diligence failures.
What’s next for companies and member states covered by the CS3D?
Now that the Directive has become law, EU Member States have two years to transpose it into their national laws, after which enforcement will commence. Currently, the directive is expected to cover more than 5500 companies. For more information, check out Shift’s responses to Frequently Asked Questions about the CS3D.
Core Resources
Our analysis
5 resources
April 2024
Frequently Asked Questions about the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive
In this resource, Rachel Davis (Co-Founder), and Ruben Zandvliet (Deputy Director for Standards), answer companies’ frequently asked questions about the new Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. Since the approval of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D) by senior officials from EU Member States in Council on 15 March, we’ve received numerous questions from companies […]
Aligning the EU Due Diligence Directive with the International Standards: Key Issues in the Negotiations
Aligning the CS3D with the core concepts in the international standards The EU is currently in the process of negotiating a legal instrument that will establish new corporate human rights and environmental due diligence duties across the single market – the draft Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D). At the heart of the negotiations is […]
Designing an EU Due Diligence Duty that Delivers Better Outcomes
What is the CS3D? 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. […]
Shift’s Analysis of the EU Commission’s Proposal for a Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive
On 23 February 2022, the European Commission released its ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence. Its overall objective is to ensure that companies active in the internal market contribute to sustainable development …through the identification, prevention and mitigation, bringing to an end and minimization […]
“Signals of Seriousness” for Human Rights Due Diligence
This discussion draft is intended for the consideration of the European Commission and other stakeholders as the Commission develops proposals on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (mHREDD) and considers how national regulators would implement any such legislation. Shift is submitting this draft together with our formal response to DG JUST’s consultation on a […]
Rachel Davis’ March 2022 COMMENTS to the European Parliament RBC Working Group on the release of the Commission’s proposal
Our March 2022 ANALYSIS of the Commission’s proposal for a draft Directive
Our October 2021 Key Design Considerations for the Enforcement of Mandatory Due Diligence, developed in collaboration with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
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.
With almost 1 in 4 asset owners using international human rights standards to guide their responsible investment activities last year, investor demand for “better S in ESG” data is growing. Investors are not only considering the impacts on people that arise or could arise from their business activities and investee companies, but they are also trying to understand how risks to people can create financial and reputational risk.
Working together, Shift and UN PRI, the world’s leading proponent of responsible investment, set out to identify the key challenges facing investors in understanding and addressing how portfolio companies manage human rights risks within their operations and value chains. In this paper, they outline four key areas for improving the quantity and quality of information accessible to investors. Download the full report to learn more about how these gaps can be addressed, and how they relate to the latest developments in reporting standards.
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.
