Help us make the FRA website better for you!
Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.
A Human Rights Approach to Due Diligence: Reflections on key principles
Search inside this publication
- Executive summary
- Introduction
- 1. Why is mandatory human rights due diligence needed?
-
2. A risk-based approach within human rights due diligence
- 2.1. Business responsibility to respect human rights
- 2.2. Risk-based approach to identification and assessment of adverse impacts
- 2.3. Shared responsibility in implementing due diligence across the chain of activities
- 2.4. Ongoing monitoring in line with a risk-based approach
- 2.5. A risk-based approach to responsible disengagement
- 3. Stakeholder engagement
- 4. Access to effective remedies and civil liability
- 5. Oversight and enforcement
- About this publication
Stakeholders are persons, groups or communities who have interests that are or could be impacted by a company’s activities, including rights holders in particular [58]
OECD, OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2018, p. 48.
. Not all interests will be of equal importance and the level of stakeholder engagement should be proportional to the degree of the impact affecting them [59] See footnote 1.
OECD, ‘Updated commentaries on the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises on responsible business conduct’, C/MIN(2023)12/ADD2, p. 8.
. Examples of affected or potentially affected stakeholders include communities at the local, regional or national level; workers and employees including those under informal arrangements within supply chains and trade unions; children and other groups in vulnerable and marginalised situations; and consumers or end-users of products. Examples of other relevant stakeholders include non-governmental organisations (NGOs), local civil society organisations, national human rights institutions, community-based organisations and local human rights defenders, industry peers, host governments (local, regional and national), business partners and investors/shareholders.
In line with a risk-based approach, meaningful stakeholder engagement is indispensable to the HRDD process [60] See footnote 11.
. Effective and broad stakeholder involvement can help businesses assess human rights risks accurately, prioritise the risks identified and prevent, mitigate or address adverse effects [61]
United Nations Development Programme, ‘Human Rights Due Diligence: An Interpretive Guide’, 2021, q. 34.
. It can provide a company with valuable, context-specific insights that cannot be found through desk-based research or internal assessments alone [62]
Global Business Initiative on Human Rights, ‘What “Good” Looks Like – Meaningful stakeholder engagement’, 2025.
. It can help reduce the likelihood of future complaints or business disturbances. It supports business in developing more sustainable and locally acceptable solutions. Omitting the views of relevant stakeholders can result in poor decisions that interrupt operations and lead to financial loss, reputational damage and costly liabilities [63] See footnote 58.
.
While certain policy approaches seek to substantially restrict the definition of a stakeholder, a rights-based approach to risk identification and management is context-specific and affords companies leeway in identifying which stakeholders (including rights holders) to engage with and how. Should a company be obliged to limit the scope of HRDD, and hence narrow engagement with stakeholders primarily to direct business relationships, this could prevent a deeper scrutiny of supply chains where many harmful impacts occur. This reduces meaningful engagement with indirect suppliers, communities and vulnerable groups, and may cause further marginalisation of vulnerable groups or communities and indigenous peoples. By focusing more on procedural compliance rather than substantive consultations, such an approach risks undermining the purpose of consultations and distorting already well-established, promising practices of more advanced companies. It also fails to fulfil the criteria of ‘free, prior, and informed consent’ processes anchored in international standards [64]
United Nations, ‘United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, 61/295, 2007, Articles 10, 11.2, 19, 28, 29.2 and 32.
.
According to the OECD Guidelines and UNGPs [65]
UNGPs 17–21 and their commentaries.
, effective stakeholder engagement requires an ongoing, two-way communication undertaken in good faith with the relevant stakeholders, particularly those of rights holders directly affected by business activities. This engagement must be timely, accessible, appropriate and safe, particularly for stakeholders in vulnerable or marginalised positions. The OECD guidance [66] See footnote 11, pp. 20–22.
highlights the importance of prioritising those most severely impacted and ensuring that their views are taken seriously to inform corporate decision making and risk mitigation. Furthermore, the engagement process should reduce barriers to participation, ensure safe and culturally appropriate conditions for interaction and support the identification, prevention and remediation of adverse human rights impacts. The UNGPs stress that meaningful engagement strengthens legitimacy, accountability and access to remedy, aligning corporate conduct with international human rights standards.
In terms of its stipulation of the conditions of engagement, with which the CSDDD is broadly aligned, these inter alia require that consulted stakeholders receive relevant and comprehensive information. The consultation involves ongoing, regular and genuine interaction, and a dialogue held at the appropriate level of a business activity (such as the project or site level). It asks companies to take due account of barriers to engagement and ensure that stakeholders are free from retaliation and retribution, including by maintaining confidentiality and anonymity. It calls for the consideration of the needs of vulnerable rights holders and asks that attention is paid to overlapping vulnerabilities and intersecting factors, including by considering potentially affected groupings or communities, for example those protected under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and those covered in the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders [67] CSDDD, recital 65, Article 13.
.
Meaningful stakeholder engagement is a necessary feature of all stages of the HRDD process. Omitting consultation at any stage in the due diligence process may result in risks not being adequately mapped or prioritised, or in the inadequate or incorrect application of solutions to address shortcomings or mitigate potential adverse impacts.