ANALYSING

IMPACTS
PRACTITIONER
SUPPLEMENT

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACT

ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE
AND TOOLBOX

1
Contributors: The 2016 Road-testing version of the HRIA Guidance and Toolbox was
written by Nora Götzmann, Tulika Bansal, Elin Wrzoncki, Cathrine Bloch Veiberg,
Jacqueline Tedaldi and Roya Høvsgaard. This 2020 version includes important
contributions from Signe Andreasen Lysgaard, Dirk Hoffmann, Emil Lindbland Kernell,
Ashley Nancy Reynolds, Francesca Thornberry, and Kayla Winarsky Green.
Editor: Ashley Nancy Reynolds
Acknowledgments: The Road-testing and final versions of the HRIA Guidance and
Toolbox were developed with input from a number of individuals and organisations who
contributed their expertise, reflections and time on a voluntary basis, for which we are
deeply thankful. We wish to extend our sincere thanks to: Désirée Abrahams, Day
Associates; Manon Aubry, Sciences Po and Oxfam France; José Aylwin; Sibylle
Baumgartner, Kuoni Travel Management Ltd.; Richard Boele; Caroline Brodeur;
Jonathan Drimmer; Gabriela Factor, Community Insights Group; Alejandro González,
Project on Organizing, Development, Education, and Research (PODER); Jasmin Gut and
Heloise Heyer, PeaceNexus; International Alert; Human Rights Task Force members of
IPIECA, the global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues;
Madeleine Koalick, twentyfifty Ltd.; Felicity Ann Kolp; Serena Lillywhite, Oxfam Australia;
Lloyd Lipsett, LKL International Consulting Inc.; Susan Mathews, OHCHR; Siobhan
McInerney-Lankford; Geneviève Paul, FIDH; Grace Sanico Steffan, OHCHR; Haley St.
Dennis; Sam Szoke-Burke, Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment; Irit Tamir, Oxfam
America; Deniz Utlu, German Institute for Human Rights; Prof. Frank Vanclay, University
of Groningen; Margaret Wachenfeld; Yann Wyss, Nestlé; Sarah Zoen, Oxfam America.
The contribution of expert reviewers does not represent their endorsement of the
content. We would also like to thank Flavia Fries for her contributions to the Guidance
and Toolbox during her fellowship at DIHR.

Special thanks go out to the Danish International Development Agency (Danida) and the
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) for their financial
support to the development of the Guidance and Toolbox.

© 2020 The Danish Institute for Human Rights

Wilders Plads 8K
DK-1403 Copenhagen K
Phone +45 3269 8888
www. humanrights.dk
Provided such reproduction is for non-commercial use, this publication, or parts
of it, may be reproduced if author and source are quoted.
At DIHR we aim to make our publications as accessible as possible. We use large
font size, short (hyphen-free) lines, left-aligned text and strong contrast for
maximum legibility. For further information about accessibility please click
www.humanrights.dk/accessibility

3
 PHASE 3:
ANALYSING
IMPACTS

1.1 EXAMPLES OF USING HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES

IN IMPACT ANALYSIS
1.2 EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS
1.3 FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING IMPACT SEVERITY

In Phase 3: Analysing Impacts you can find an overview of this HRIA phase.
In this Practitioner Supplement you will find:
 Examples of how international human rights standards and principles
can be used in the analysis of human rights impacts
 Examples of the different types of human rights impacts to be included
in HRIA
 A framework for assessing human rights impact severity, including
examples
This Practitioner Supplement is a part of the Human Rights Impact
Assessment Guidance and Toolbox. You can find the full version here:
https://www.humanrights.dk/hria-toolbox/

1
1.1 EXAMPLES OF USING HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS AND
PRINCIPLES IN IMPACT ANALYSIS

An adverse human rights impact occurs when an action or omission removes or

reduces the ability of an individual to enjoy their human rights. But how exactly
can we determine whether a human rights impact has occurred in practice?

Table A, below, provides some illustrative examples of how specific human rights
standards and principles might be considered in the analysis of human rights
impacts.

Table A: Examples of using human rights standards and principles in impact

analysis

Example Examples of human rights standards and principles for

scenario analysis

A textile factory The right to the highest standard of physical and mental
discharges health focuses on two key aspects: (i) the provision of
chemical healthcare services, and (ii) underlying determinants, which
effluents into a includes considerations such as whether the environment in
river which local which people live is free from pollution. In this example, the
communities company appears to be having an adverse impact on the
use for drinking. right to health by causing pollution that is impacting on
The effluents people’s health.
damage the The right to water and sanitation has recently been
water quality formalised as a stand-alone human right (although it has
affecting always been part of the right to health and the right to an
people’s health. adequate standard of living). It encompasses that people
are entitled to water for drinking, cooking and sanitation;
and that such water is available, accessible, acceptable and
of sufficient quality (AAAQ). In this example, in particular
the last component, a reduction in the quality of the water,
is at issue. However, given that the river is no longer a
suitable source of drinking water, the accessibility and
availability may also be impacted depending on what other
water sources are available, and should therefore be
considered in the analysis.

A cement plant The right to non-discrimination is a cornerstone of

 Table A: Examples of using human rights standards and principles in impact
analysis

Example Examples of human rights standards and principles for

scenario analysis

is operating in a international human rights law. This includes considerations

country where it of both direct discrimination (i.e., addressing unjustified
is customary differential treatment, to promote ‘formal’ equality) and
that women do indirect discrimination (i.e., addressing conditions which,
not take part in while neutral in appearance, disadvantage certain
the formal protected groups, to foster ‘substantive’ equality). For
labour market, example, the non-discrimination provision in the European
with the result Convention on Human Rights (Article 14) is now understood
that the cement to prohibit neutral measures where these adversely affect
plant does not certain minority groups.1
employ any In recognition of systemic discrimination that may be faced
women. by particular rights-holder groups, some international
human rights treaties also expressly require states to take
and facilitate positive action to eliminate discrimination
(e.g., the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination and the Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination against Women). This can be
in the form of the state taking, and permitting other third
parties such as business to take, ‘special measures’;
essentially a provision to allow and promote affirmative
action measures providing that these are targeted and
temporary.
First and foremost, the company in the example would
need to ensure equal opportunities in hiring and other
aspects of employment. However, to avoid contributing to
discrimination against women in the formal labour market,
the company may also want to take steps to encourage
women to apply for jobs, and include some preventive
measures to avoid unforeseen adverse impacts on women if
they work. For example, by providing working conditions
that address the reasons why women do not participate in
the formal labour market, or applying for an exemption
under non-discrimination legislation to target hiring
women.
1
See, e.g., Thlimmenos v Greece (2000) 9 BHRC 12.

3
Table A: Examples of using human rights standards and principles in impact
analysis

Example Examples of human rights standards and principles for

scenario analysis

A hydropower Access to information is a human right, recognised as part

dam project is in of the right to freedom of expression, as well as an
the planning important component of the right to participation. This
stages and the includes that rights-holders must have access to
company does information that is timely, adequate, accessible and
not make the appropriate for enabling them to meaningfully participate
environmental in decision-making that affects them.
impact There are also specific provisions in international law
assessment that regarding people’s participation in environmental decision-
has been making, for example in the Åarhus Convention (1998).
conducted Therefore, the company should publicly report its
publicly environmental impact assessment.
available.

People are The right to property is not absolute and the government is
resettled by a entitled to acquire land and other property, providing that
mining company it is necessary in the national interest, due process is
to alternative followed and people are adequately compensated.
land, without However, the compulsory acquisition of property can only
sufficiently be exercised by the state, which also retains the duty to
consulting them ensure that any acquisition of property and resettlement of
on the people occurs in accordance with the applicable standards.
suitability of the Therefore, the HRIA should consider the arrangement that
alternative has been made between the government and the company
location. in detail, including evaluating whether the government has
breached its human rights duty to protect by allowing the
resettlement to occur without following due process or a
failure to monitor that the company has applied the
requisite standards. It will also be necessary to examine in
detail the division of roles and responsibilities of the
government and the company in the resettlement,
especially with regard to consultation and livelihood
restoration.
When considering the impacts of resettlement it is also
particularly important to consider the interrelatedness of
human rights. For example, if the alternative location is far

4
 Table A: Examples of using human rights standards and principles in impact
analysis

Example Examples of human rights standards and principles for

scenario analysis

from educational or healthcare facilities, the rights to

education or health may also be negatively impacted. Or if
the communities being resettled rely on land and
agricultural activities for subsistence, if the land at
alternative locations is not arable enough then the rights to
food, water and an adequate standard of living may be
impacted. Furthermore, it will be necessary to look carefully
at how different rights-holders experience any impacts
associated with the resettlement. For example, the distance
that children will travel to school as a result of the
resettlement may have an impact on their right to
education, or if women in subsistence communities bear
the primary responsibilities for food gathering and
agricultural activities their experience of any impacts on the
right to food are likely to be more severe.

The rights to The right to freedom of association is one of the

freedom of fundamental rights at work, recognised both in the
association and International Bill of Human Rights as well as the
collective fundamental International Labour Organization
bargaining are Conventions. It is considered to be important both as a right
not guaranteed in and of itself, but also because the enjoyment of this right
in the national can have significant implications for promoting or inhibiting
law so the enjoyment of other human rights, such as the right to
employees do an adequate standard of living.
not have access According to the UN Guiding Principles, the responsibility to
to independent respect human rights applies in all contexts, and exists over
trade unions nor and above compliance with national laws and regulations.
collective In situations where domestic and international law conflict,
bargaining. businesses are therefore expected to seek ways to honour
the principles of internationally recognised human rights.2
There are two potential scenarios:
1. National law is silent on a particular human rights
standard or principle: In such scenarios, the business is
2
UN Guiding Principle 23.

5
 Table A: Examples of using human rights standards and principles in impact
analysis

Example Examples of human rights standards and principles for

scenario analysis

not strictly prevented from upholding the international

human rights standard and should endeavour to do so.
2. National law is in contradiction of international human
rights: In such cases, businesses are expected to uphold
the spirit and intent of international human rights
without violating national laws.
In the present example, the business should take steps to
find other means of enabling meaningful and constructive
worker-management dialogue, without violating national
law. For example, the business might create elected
workers committees. In such situations businesses also have
an opportunity to work with peers and other stakeholders
to work towards compatibility of national standards with
international human rights law.

1.2 EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS

According to the UN Guiding Principles, businesses are required to consider

actual and potential human rights impacts, which are caused by the business,
impacts that the business contributes to, and impacts that are directly linked to
a company’s operations, products or services through business relationships
(including both contractual and non-contractual relationships). 3

Table B, below, presents some examples of these different types of human rights
impacts.

Table B: Examples of different types of human rights impacts

Type of impact Examples

Caused (by the  A company discriminates in its hiring practices, for

business’s example, by not affording equal opportunity to
action or indigenous applicants.
omission)  Exposure of company’s workers to hazardous working

3
UN Guiding Principle 13.

6
Table B: Examples of different types of human rights impacts

Type of impact Examples

conditions without adequate safety equipment.

Contributed to Examples of contribution through a third party

(through own (encouraging, facilitating or incentivising):
activities or  Providing information about internet users to a
through a third government that uses it for surveillance of political
party, including opponents.
cumulative  Changing product requirements for suppliers at the last
impacts) minute without adjusting production deadlines and
prices, thus pushing suppliers to breach labour
standards in order to deliver.
 Public security forces stationed to protect assets use
excessive force against protesters.
Examples of contribution together with other contributors
(collective impacts):
 Discharging a permissible amount of pollution into the
local environment which, together with permissible
discharges by other companies, impacts community use
of ecosystem services (e.g. water).
 Concurrent operations by multiple companies in
concentrated location, thereby restricting access to
grazing lands of nomadic herders.

Directly linked  Providing financial loans to a project that breaches

(to operations, agreed standards and causes environmental pollution,
products or thereby impacting on the health of local communities.
services through  Embroidery on a retail company’s clothing products
business being subcontracted by the supplier to child labourers in
relationships, homes, contrary to contractual obligations.
including both
contractual and
non-contractual
relationships)

Source: Some of these examples are drawn from: Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights (2012), The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human
Rights: An Interpretive Guide, Geneva and New York: OHCHR, A/HRC/12/02.

7
1.3 FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING IMPACT SEVERITY

In order to prioritise sequencing of mitigation measures human rights impacts

should be assessed according to their ‘severity’ which is determined by
considering the scale, scope and irremediability of the impact. You can read
more about these different parameters, as well as how the concept of severity
differs from significance, in Phase 3: Analysing Impacts.

Table C below, provides one suggestion for how the above parameters to assess
severity might be applied in HRIA practice. However, adding human rights
impacts to ranking models is not necessarily conducive to the purpose of
analysing human rights impacts and as such human rights expertise should guide
any development of models for assessing severity. Additionally, Table D provides
some examples of how the parameters might be considered in impact analysis.

While some type of numerical ranking might prove useful in the analysis of
human rights impacts to distinguish between different impacts, it is important to
remember that human rights analysis cannot rely on these types of ‘scoring’
alone, and a thorough narrative description (based on qualitative data and/or
indicators) of impacts and proposed mitigation measures (i.e., to avoid, mitigate
and remediate the impacts) should always be provided.

Table C: Parameters for evaluating impact severity

Scale (including consideration of vulnerability)

Vulnerability needs to be an integral part of considering the scale, or
seriousness, of the impact. This is because a person’s particular circumstances,
including their ability to respond to change, may have an influence on how
‘serious’ an impact may be for that individual. As well as considering
vulnerability as part of scale, assessors may wish to list vulnerability as a
separate parameter, to demonstrate clearly how vulnerability has been
considered in the analysis.

Will cause death or adverse health effects that could lead to A

significant reduction in quality of life and/or longevity

A tangible human right infringement of access to basic life B

necessities (including education, livelihood, etc.)
Impact to cultural, economic, natural and social
infrastructure/assets that have been identified as highly valued
by identified groups or subject matter experts in the impact

8
Table C: Parameters for evaluating impact severity

assessment process
Impact to ecosystem services identified as priority to
livelihoods, health, safety or culture in the impact assessment
process

All other impacts C

Scope

A human rights perspective places emphasis on rights and freedoms as they

are enjoyed and exercised by specific individuals. It is therefore important to
consider scope (i.e., the number of people affected) not only in absolute
numbers but also to consider more precisely, who the individual workers and
community members are that are impacted. Some impacts might be small in
numerical terms but might be biased towards certain rights-holder groups that
proportionally are hit harder. For example, maybe only 5% of workers are
affected but if this is the entirety of the security workers, who have been
identified as having poor working conditions, this would need to be elevated.
Identifiable groups will be context specific. Ways of disaggregating the
potentially affected people might include, for example, permanent vs
temporary workers, female or male community members, etc.

>20% of total population in area of impact or >50% of A

identifiable group

>10% of total population in area of impact or >11-50% of B

identifiable group

>5% of total population in area of impact or <10% of C

identifiable group

Irremediability

The third important factor to consider in severity evaluation is how easy or

difficult it would be to remediate the impact.

Difficult – complex technical requirements, little acceptance of A

remediation by the identified group, low capacity of
implementation partner, no viable replacement for loss caused

9
Table C: Parameters for evaluating impact severity

by impacts

Moderate – simpler technical requirements, acceptance by the B

identified group, implementation partner can deliver with
some capacity development

Easy – simple technical requirements, acceptance by the C

identified group, implementation partner has capacity to
deliver

Source: Danish Institute for Human Rights and Community Insights Group

Table D: Examples of assessing impact severity

Impact Scale Scope Irremediability Overall

Scenario assessment

A company B: A tangible A: Whilst the C: The impact This might

has infringement absolute can be be
temporarily on the right number of remediated by considered
restricted to participate people re-establishing an impact of
access to an in cultural affected is access to the medium
important life. small, the cultural severity;
cultural people hertiage site whilst it is a
heritage site impacted are after the temporary
for a group of indigneous temporary impact that
indigenous and have restrictions. can also be
peoples, been remediated,
which make identified as the impact is
up 2% of the a vulnerable on a group
population group. of
and have vulnerable
been individuals.
identified as a
vulnerable
group.

Private A: A serious A: Women A: The impacts This might

security interference and girls not of sexual be

10
Table D: Examples of assessing impact severity

Impact Scale Scope Irremediability Overall

Scenario assessment

forces with the only make harassment considered

employed by women and up half of and assault an impact of
the company girls’ right to the would be high
have been security of population, difficult or severity.
found to person and but they impossible to
sexually children’s would also remediate.
harass rights. be
women and considered
girls in the vulnerable to
local this
communities. particular
type of
harassment.

A company A: Serious A: The A: Serious This might

has poor injury or percentage injury or death be
health and death may of people will not be considered
safety result if the affected is remediable. an impact of
training in workers are almost 100% high
place for its not trained of the severity.
construction on how to identifiable
site navigate the group (i.e.,
employees, hazardous the
who make up conditions, company’s
90% of the impacting on workers).
workforce of the right to
the company. life and the
right to
health.

A company is C: Given that B: Some C: The impact is In this

using land the families are remediable if particular
that was communities impacted, other plots for context, this
previously have and there agriculture impact on
used by some numerous are no could be found, land used
families for other sources indications people can be for
agricultural of income that these granted access agricultural

11
Table D: Examples of assessing impact severity

Impact Scale Scope Irremediability Overall

Scenario assessment

purposes. and are not people are to land by the purposes

Agriculture is relying on more or less company to might be
one source of agriculture vulnerable grow crops, or considered
income for this does not than others compensation an impact of
the local appear to be in the for loss of low severity.
communities, a substantial community. additional
they also impact on income can be
engage in their ability provided.
numerous to generate a
other livelihood.
livelihood
sustaining
activities.

12