Ten years on from the UN Guiding Principles, the soft law of human rights due diligence has helped provide a path beyond shareholder primacy towards stakeholder governance. This is now influencing hard law, particularly in Europe. In this paper, Shift’s Chair, Professor John Ruggie, and our two co-founders, Caroline Rees and Rachel Davis explain the journey.
The paper is divided into five parts. The first recaps the current debate regarding the purpose of the corporation, which centers on whether and how stakeholder governance should and could supersede shareholder primacy. The second provides a brief backstory on shareholder primacy versus stakeholder governance. The third introduces the elements of HRDD and demonstrates that even in its soft law form it is bringing stakeholder concerns and corporate practice into closer alignment. Section IV describes how this experience with soft law is informing national and supranational legal requirements in a growing number of jurisdictions, with knock-on effects for corporate governance. The conclusion endeavors to draw some lessons from how, a mere decade after UN endorsement of the Guiding Principles, they have turned the idea that companies are responsible for preventing and addressing adverse impacts of their business on people’s basic dignity and equality into a mainstream proposition with significant implications for corporate governance while acknowledging that large gaps remain in the BHR space.
In every region of the world lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people face some degree of violence, persecution or discrimination.
From what is said around a family dinner table to who gets to compete in a sports contest; from who is welcome in a bathroom to who is sentenced in a court room; to forced sterilization and harmful medical procedures; and from who gets an apartment, job offer or promotion to who gets imprisoned, flogged or sentenced to death. The contexts for such violence and discrimination are as varied as the people in the LGBTI acronym, and pose a wide range of human rights risks for companies.
Businesses have a responsibility – under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) – to understand and address how their actions, decisions, omissions and business relationships can lead to negative impacts on people. In the case of LGBTI people, that means considering how they could be adding to the risk that they already face on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics (SOGIESC).
Use this resource to:
Learn how business activities and relationships can exacerbate risks faced by LGBTI people.
Understand why risk can vary depending on geographical and cultural context, and what that means for global businesses.
Explore how companies can understand the particular vulnerabilities experienced by LGBTI people to better identify risks and prioritize action.
Review what companies are doing to address risks to the rights of LGBTI people, and where the gaps are in existing practice.
Consider meaningful ways in which companies can engage with LGBTI stakeholders and use their leverage with peers, partners, suppliers, governments and others
This is a case study about how Gold Fields, a global mining company, has assessed its relationship with communities around the South Deep Gold Mine in the West Rand, South Africa. Three assessments, in which the company gathered extensive community perceptions via surveys and focus groups, were conducted between 2014 and 2019.
This case study:
provides an overview of the methodologies applied by the company, including the indicators that were assessed, how data was gathered, and the ways in which the data has been analyzed by the company to inform actions; and
outlines the steps the company has taken to improve its practices based on the insights from the community shared in the assessments. These range from board allocation of resources to adjustments in how the company engages with local communities.
The case study is a good example of how measuring the quality of company-community relationships can not only shed light on the nuanced realities that feed into a company’s overall social license to operate. It also enables data-driven company discussion and decision-making, including among senior leaders and the board.
“At a very early stage of the work, we realized that we needed to listen and understand how our communities really felt about us. Initially, this was an uncomfortable process as we learned about the differences between how we thought the communities felt about our presence and their experiences on the ground.Given strong board-level support and visibility on this new way of engagement, our teams on the ground felt that it was critical to measure the strength of our relationships. Even though there were no readily available tools at the time we got started – a crude windsock would be better than nothing. Much has evolved since those early days with the relationship tools now more developed and providing insights for our long journey ahead in building trust with a key stakeholder. As the saying goes, if it is important, you need to manage it – what you can measure, you can manage.”
Naseem Chohan, EVP Sustainable Development and South Deep Gold Mine board member
There are a total of 22 indicators, divided into two categories:
(To see an overview chart with all 22 indicators, click HERE)
And each indicator is organized into three levels:
Level One: Overview
This includes:
Explanation or an overview of the indicator and its relevance for embedding organizational behaviors, and robust due diligence practices that support respect for human rights;
Key Questions for leaders to ask or be asked to aid initial analysis of whether the governance or leadership practice is present in the organization; and
Connection to Culture that shows the link back to features of a rights-respecting culture.
Level Two: Application
This discusses:
Types of Application highlighting the types of use, whether inside a company or by those outside a company, to which this indicator particularly lends itself; and
Sources of Evidence signaling where information related to the indicator might be found, whether in documentation or by soliciting the perspectives of stakeholders.
Level Three: Supporting Indicators
The insight gained from using a single indicator in isolation – however well designed – will have its limits. These limits typically arise from assumptions behind the indicator, for example about pre-existing knowledge, motivations or the practices of others. Users can therefore validate the insight offered by an indicator by combining it with one or more others that address those assumptions. This section provides guidance on which indicators can be used in combination to meet this aim.
There are 10Governance Indicators and 12 Leadership Indicators. You may use the purple bar below to filter them by each of the four features of corporate culture: authenticity, empathy, accountability and organizational learning. Hover over the “i” next. to each indicator to preview its full title. Once you’ve picked the ones you want to download, select them by clicking on the circled number of each indicator and choose ‘Download All Selected’. You may also choose to download the full series or to download a high level menu. To learn more about how each Indicator is structured, please see this page. For support, please contact communications [at] shiftproject [dot] org.
Using participatory evaluation to address the root causes of an issue
This case study is part of a collection developed under the Quality of Relationships stream of Shift’s Valuing Respect Project. It explores how Philip Morris International (PMI), a global tobacco company, used participatory evaluation tools to gather information in order to address the “root causes of the most prevalent and persistent issues that keep surfacing” – specifically child labor in their agricultural supply chain.
Also Read
December 2020 |
Assessing whether Behavior Change Training can Improve Relationships Between Supervisors and Workers
Over the years, PMI has been gathering data through regular assessments and farm visits, which help the company to monitor the implementation of its labor standards, including zero child labor. However, it is its latest strategy, Step Change, that has provided complementary information about local awareness challenges, customs and societal attitudes that normalized children working on tobacco-growing farms. In driving this change, PMI has set itself an ambitious target to eliminate child labor from its leaf supply chain by 2025. Addressing incidences of child labor is important due to the hazardous nature of the agricultural work, which can pose increased health and safety risk to children. This case study describes how a combination of participatory methods allowed local and affected people to express in their own terms any local realities that run counter to the company’s efforts to reduce the use of child labor on farms.
Specifically, the evaluation uncovered that:
workers are more accepting of children working on farms than farmers;
child labor is seen as part of a widespread societal norm of communal work; and
strong cultural beliefs ingrained in the society including of some local leaders, educators and community representatives weakening the company’s messaging about child labor.
“We asked ourselves: ‘Why aren’t we seeing positive change?’ That is when we decided to take a deep dive, speak to the farmers and workers directly to uncover root causes which were preventing us from achieving desired outcomes.” “
JOANNE LE PATOUREL, MANAGER SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY LEAF, PMI
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 potential new corporate duty to carry out HREDD.
Also Read
February 2026 |
Human Rights Due Diligence: The State of Play in Europe
In this discussion draft, we propose some key signals that national regulators could use in assessing the seriousness or quality of a company’s HRDD, grouped into six broad areas of company practice:
Governance of human rights;
Meaningful engagement with affected stakeholders;
Identifying and prioritizing risks;
Taking action on identified risks;
Monitoring and evaluating progress in addressing risks;
Providing and enabling remedy
Not all these features need to be present to judge HRDD to be meaningful or serious, yet where few of them are present, it is unlikely that HRDD will achieve its purpose in practice.
This draft is intended to inform a discussion about assessment by national regulators of company compliance with potential new mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (mHREDD) legislation by:
Highlighting critical features of HRDD that are often overlooked or done poorly in practiceby companies (such as meaningful stakeholder engagement);
Identifying key practices and behaviors needed for meaningful implementation of HRDD that can help in distinguishing better from poorer quality HRDD by going beyond the ‘observable basics’ of company practice;
Being relevant to companies of all sizes and sectors by highlighting features of HRDD that could be demonstrated by any company in a variety of ways.
It is not intended to:
Replace or dilute existing guidance on the process elements of HRDD;
Exclude consideration of authoritative sector-specific guidance by regulators where that is relevant to a company being assessed;
Define leading practice in carrying out HRDD.
We welcome feedback on this discussion draft and will be consulting further on it during Q1 2021. Please direct your feedback and inquiries to: info [at] shiftproject [dot] org
This is a case study of how Best Buy assessed the effectiveness of a factory training program designed to address certain behaviors of supervisors that were impeding good quality relationships with workers. Specifically, the program sought to improve how supervisors, among other things, managed conflict with workers, listened to workers, and dealt with workplace stress. Companies often use knowledge tests to assess training activities. However, measuring how the newly-acquired knowledge affects the everyday practices and behaviors of participants requires more innovative and deliberate techniques. In this case, the company:
used a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evidence whether any improvements in supervisor awareness and behavior could be attributed to the training program; and
built-in worker voice – in the form of worker surveys and interviews – to measure the change in how supervisors interacted with workers.
Having robust evidence about the success and challenges of the training program has allowed Best Buy to communicate the outcomes of its efforts to its stakeholders in a balanced way, and to identify improvements that can be put in place before scaling the program in other locations.
I strongly encourage companies to do what they can to isolate their interventions so as to better assess the impact they are having on labor practices and working conditions. We created target and control groups, which is ideal, but not the only option in seeking to evaluate more accurately.
hamlin metzger, senior director of human rights – best buy
In March 2020, Shift’s Rachel Davis and the former UN Human Rights Chief, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, delivered the report ‘Recommendations for an IOC Human Rights Strategy’ to IOC President Thomas Bach. The report in full has been made publicly available by the IOC on the organization’s website. Below is a summary of the recommendations that were included in the report, grouped into five pillars.
The authors recommend:
1. Articulating the IOC’s human rights responsibilities, including by adopting appropriate amendments to the Olympic Charter and other core documents, developing a detailed human rights policy commitment reflecting the expectations of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and setting similar expectations for the Olympic Movement as a whole through the “Basic Universal Principles of Good Governance of the Olympic and Sports Movement”.
2. Embedding respect for human rights across the organization to ensure that the IOC’s commitment is driven into its values and culture, including by: hiring a Head of Human Rights to lead implementation of a new human rights strategy, supported by a Human Rights Unit; establishing a cross-functional steering group on human rights at Director-level; ensuring the IOC’s governing bodies take full account of human rights in their decision-making (including through the role of the proposed Human Rights Advisory Committee); and ensuring that there is human rights expertise in the IOC’s consultative Commissions.
3. Identifying and addressing human rights risks by strengthening human rights due diligence across the IOC’s operations, including by: routinely integrating the perspectives of affected stakeholders (such as athletes, journalists, volunteers, fans, workers and local communities) into the process of identifying and taking action on human rights risks; significantly strengthening the way in which athlete voice and representation informs decision-making within the IOC and the Movement more broadly; taking a more robust approach to using the IOC’s leverage with National Olympic Committees and International Federations on human rights issues; and integrating a focus on salient human rights issues (such as child protection and respect for athletes’ human rights) into existing areas of the IOC’s work.
4. Tracking and communicating on the IOC’s progress, including by: evaluating the human rights performance of the IOC’s partners, especially that of OCOGs for upcoming editions of the Olympic Games; deepening the IOC’s engagement with affected stakeholders and their legitimate representatives (including trade union representatives where athletes are unionized), or with credible proxies for affected stakeholders’ views where direct engagement is not possible; and enhancing transparency about the IOC’s human rights efforts.
Also Read
December 2020 |
Statement on the Publication of the Report ‘Recommendations for an IOC Human Rights Strategy’
5. Strengthening the wider remedy ecosystem in sport by contributing to a significant improvement in the quality of grievance mechanisms at all levels of sport, including strengthening sports bodies’ own mechanisms, supporting social dialogue processes in sport, and enabling access to state-based forms of remedy for severe human rights harms. We recommended that this should begin with an initial focus on: improving access to remedy in cases of harassment and abuse; improving Games-time grievance mechanisms (run by the IOC as well as by OCOGs); and reviewing the preparedness of the IOC’s own systems to handle human rights complaints.
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein was the UN human rights chief from 2014-2018; and is a highly-regarded defender and promoter of universal human rights -awarded the Stockholm prize in 2015 as well the Tulip prize in 2018 for his human rights work. For much of his career, he was a senior diplomat, serving twice as Jordan’s ambassador to the United Nations (in New York) and once as Jordan’s ambassador to the United States (2007-2010). He also represented Jordan twice before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In January 2014, he served as president of the UN Security Council. Earlier, in 2002 he was elected the first president of the governing body of the International Criminal Court (ICC) — guiding the court’s growth in its first three years (9/2002-9/2005). He chaired some of the most complex legal negotiations associated with the court’s statute. He contributed to the international community’s efforts at countering the threat of nuclear materials being trafficked by terrorists (2010-2014). And he led the UN’s efforts at eliminating sexual exploitation and abuse in UN peacekeeping (2004-2007). From 1994-1996, he was a UN civilian peacekeeper with UNPROFOR. He has degrees from Johns Hopkins and Cambridge universities. In 2019, he was appointed a member of The Elders, an independent group of global leaders working for peace, justice and human rights, founded by Nelson Mandela. He is currently the Perry World House Professor of the Practice of Law and Human Rights at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2019, he was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and awarded an honorary knighthood (KCMG) from Queen Elizabeth II.
Rachel Davis is Co-founder and Vice President of Shift, the leading center of expertise on the UN Guiding Principles on Human Rights, where she has led work for the last decade on standard-setting, human rights and sports, financial institutions, conflict and international law. Rachel has been the Chair of FIFA’s independent Human Rights Advisory Board since it was established in 2017 and has advised the International Olympic Committee on human rights since 2018. She was a senior legal advisor to the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on business and human rights, Harvard Professor John Ruggie (2006-2011), and is a Senior Program Fellow with the Corporate Responsibility Initiative at Harvard Kennedy School. An author of the leading study on the costs of company-community conflict in the extractive sector, Rachel has worked at the High Court of Australia and the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. She is a graduate of Harvard University and the University of New South Wales.
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.
