On October 10, 2024, IPIS hosted a panel discussion focusing on corporate human rights due diligence (HRDD) and its implementation in mineral supply chains. Moderated by Maureen Walschot, the panel featured Mieke Thierens, IPIS researcher specializing in the socio-economic, human rights, and environmental impacts of mining on communities; Hilde Deman, Executive Director at Search for Common Ground; and Bart Devos, Vice President of Public Policy at the Responsible Business Alliance.
Context and importance of human rights due diligence
Setting the stage, Maureen Walschot highlighted the critical role of HRDD in fostering corporate accountability and responsible business practices, especially in areas where human rights are vulnerable. Non-binding instruments such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct have been influential in shaping corporate policies. However, a growing number of binding tools such as national HRDD laws and the recently introduced Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) at the EU level are also emerging. These regulatory texts impose binding obligations on companies to identify, assess, prevent, mitigate, and remediate adverse human rights impacts they are or may be causing or contributing to through their operations or supply chains.
Existing gaps and challenges
Panelists first discussed some of the challenges facing HRDD implementation and the existing gaps to address:
Mieke Thierens built on IPIS’ research on the independent corporate grievance mechanism Petra Diamonds set up at the Williamson Diamond Mine in Tanzania following allegations of serious human rights harm and an out-of-court settlement that Petra Diamonds reached with 96 Tanzanian victims. Research results highlighted multiple challenges for affected persons who filed a claim with the Williamson mine’s independent grievance mechanism in the hope of getting remediation for the harm they suffered. These challenges include insufficient access to information for communities and claimants, ineffective support systems for claimants, and a top-down approach that prevented dialogue and undermined a sense of fairness, justice, and trust.
– Mieke Thierens“Through extensive field research spread over two years, IPIS collected experiences of communities to understand how they experienced the company’s operational grievance mechanism and especially whether they got a sense of justice and increased trust, the ambition of the mechanism. Overall, we learned that, despite strong conceptual foundations and a willingness to learn, the real-life implementation of the grievance mechanism suffered from shortcomings that had a significant impact on how the process and its outcomes were experienced.”
Reacting to this case, Hilde Deman underlined the cost of inaction when companies do not effectively address grounds for conflict and stressed the need for them to invest in conflict prevention. She shared experiences from her work with Search for Common Ground in Madagascar. In 2013, protestors took hostage workers as well as the CEO and the CFO of the Rio Tinto Madagascan mine following undealt grievances. She stressed that companies operate in pre-existing contexts and cannot underestimate existing community tensions. Companies must consider the impact of their operations, recruitment, and procurement practices in light of local contexts to prevent exacerbating inequalities or fueling tensions. Insufficient consideration of local contexts and tensions can have profound implications for a company’s social license to operate. Hilde Deman also emphasized the impact of information imbalances.
“Where information is lacking, rumors easily spread and can lead to tensions and conflicts.”
– Hilde Deman
Speaking from his experience working at the Responsible Business Alliance (RBA) and assisting companies in implementing supply chain sustainability, Bart Devos commented on the readiness of companies towards mandatory due diligence requirements such as the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Besides concerns regarding policy coherence, company members of the RBA overall consider that mandatory law regulating supply chain due diligence will help set the bar, address existing gaps, and ensure accountability.
Bart Devos highlighted that the CSDDD is built on existing due diligence frameworks and stressed that many tools are already available. For Bart Devos, the main implementation challenges that remain to be addressed are:
- Supply chain mapping: Companies with large supply chains can map their direct suppliers (tier 1) and part of their manufacturers (tier 2), but gaps are significant in the identification of the raw material suppliers (tier 3 and beyond), which seriously compromises due diligence efforts.
- Stakeholder engagement: Most companies acknowledge that their stakeholder engagement is too occasional. Embedding stakeholder engagement in all steps of the operations is essential for all actors to have a voice in risk assessments, in policy commitments, and in the definition of what remediations should look like.
- Remediation remains a blind spot for many companies.
“We hear from 90% of our members that the CSDDD will improve and facilitate their work on supply chain sustainability.”
– Bart Devos.
Practical recommendations for improvement
Panelists also provided concrete recommendations to address identified gaps and enhance corporate HRDD practices:
Hilde Deman emphasized the need for companies to conduct thorough conflict analysis, on a regular basis, to better understand the context in which they operate. As communication gaps foster distrust, providing accessible information to communities is crucial. So is listening, to create feedback loops and be better prepared when grievances arise. Investments in training for employees are also strategic to ensure best practices trickle down beyond the sustainability teams. Security personnel can, for instance, be sensitized to crowd management and non-violent communication. Finally, Hilde Deman promoted multi-stakeholder dialogues as companies can play exemplary roles for other stakeholders and vice-versa.
Bart Devos added that what HRDD requires is not easy for companies to do alone and stressed the importance of collective action. Harmonizing processes and providing capacity-building support for suppliers is central to the corporate implementation of HRDD. Bart Devos also referred to the concerns regarding the overreliance of companies on industry schemes. The RBA considers that clear guidelines on the responsible ways for companies to use industry schemes are needed. The Alliance is also in favor of the establishment by legislators of binding quality criteria for industry initiatives. He also pointed out the challenges around the notion, conditions, and risks of disengagement. Bart Devos advocated for clear rules for companies to implement theories of responsible disengagement into practice. Lastly, he underscored that companies seek guidance on stakeholder engagement and encouraged civil society to share best practices on this matter.
For Mieke Thierens, some of the most important elements companies must secure to effectively remediate harm, restore trust, and mitigate conflicts include:
- A profound understanding of operational contexts through appropriate engagement with all stakeholders. Studies show that only context-specific solutions are effective.
- Transparency about operational procedures and policies is a requirement for the legitimacy of corporate (remediation) practices.
- Ensuring communities have the tools to engage as equal partners, to mitigate existing power imbalances between companies and their host communities.
- Aligning corporate practices with promises.
- Building trust is essential in providing remediation. Preventing further harm is a must, as is robust monitoring to ensure tensions or grievances do not escalate.
Maureen Walschot finally asked the panelists what they consider primordial to ensure that the tools of due diligence help to achieve the goal of increased corporate respect for and protection of human rights on the ground.
For Bart Devos, companies must avoid risk-benefit assessments and tick-boxing compliance with the law. He stresses that the CSDDD doesn’t require perfection but calls on continuous improvement of corporate practices through a better identification of risks and enhanced mitigation and remediation. Hilde Deman underlined the need to also engage with producing countries and with local civil society actors for them to have a good comprehension of due diligence requirements, be able to dialogue with the private sector and avoid disengagement. Mieke Thierens considers meaningful stakeholder engagement to be a priority. Civil society in producing countries and beyond can play a much-needed capacity-building and monitoring role to ensure that initiatives have the positive impact they ambition.
Discussion with the audience
The audience engaged in a lively Q&A session with the panel. The discussions further elaborated on the need for effective, diversified remediation strategies in line with affected communities’ needs, on the importance of also addressing community trauma collectively and of corporations acknowledging the harm that was done, and on ensuring meaningful engagement that is (culturally) aware of the local context.
Several questions also addressed the challenges linked to the implementation of HRDD where national regulations vary from international best practices, in contexts where the supply of minerals is critical, in weak governance systems, and in areas controlled by armed groups.
Concerns were raised about the potential burden of the CSDDD on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). However, it was noted that the directive encourages standardization, which benefits SMEs, and foresees financial support for due diligence efforts.
Lastly, topics such as the rights of communities to withdraw consent from mining projects and best practices for mine closures were explored. It was concluded that human rights due diligence must be a continuous process throughout the entire lifecycle of mining projects and in the entirety of mineral value chains.
IPIS appreciates all participants for their engagement in this important discussion.
This event is supported by the European Union and the Belgian Development Cooperation.
