Oxfam released the paper ‘Innovative Pathways: When and How to Use Alternative Approaches to Human Rights Impact Assessments’ (February 2025), in which it describes emerging alternatives to Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs) and provide recommendations for when, how, and under what conditions companies can use them.
Human Level’s Take:
- Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs) are a valuable tool for conducting effective human rights due diligence (HRDD). They provide critical insights into human rights risks and help businesses address the root causes of negative impacts. For HRIAs to be effective, they must meet essential criteria, including selecting appropriate assessment targets, engaging meaningfully with affected stakeholders, identifying and addressing root causes, ensuring transparency, and developing actionable recommendations.
- However, HRIAs can be resource-intensive. Cost-effective alternatives that still maintain effectiveness include: (1) joint HRIAs conducted collaboratively by companies sourcing from the same supply chain or supplier; (2) sector-wide or landscape assessments led by companies, multi-stakeholder organizations, or governments covering a broader region, landscape, or industry; and (3) rapid assessments that apply the HRIA methodology to a more focused set of issues or suppliers.
- Ultimately, the success of any HRIA or alternative method depends on the company’s genuine commitment—particularly from senior leadership—to act on the findings in a meaningful way, ensuring transparency, accountability, and lasting impact.
Some key takeaways:
- HRIAs can be meaningful and effective tools for HRDD. Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIA) can be a vital tool for effective human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD), enabling companies to have an in-depth understanding of the negative human rights impacts of their business activities. HRIAs also provide an opportunity for companies to engage rights-holders and address the root causes of the negative impacts they experience. They are particularly useful in complex supply chains with severe human rights risks and impacts that have not yet been well documented. However, they are not all equally robust. To be effective, HRIAs must involve: (1) carefully selecting assessment targets, based on the severity of human rights risks; (2) meaningfully engaging with rights-holders who ensure the assessment identifies the most salient human rights issues and effective solutions; (3) addressing root causes, including the company’s purchasing practices; (4) attributing responsibility to relevant actors, including by determining whether a company has caused, contributed to, or is directly linked to the human rights impacts; (5) transparency of process and results; and (6) actionable recommendations.
- Why are companies exploring alternatives? While an increasing number of companies are conducting HRIAs to assess their human rights risks, they are resource-intensive processes, requiring significant time and financial investment. The process can be particularly challenging for small- and medium-sized enterprises with limited resources, as well as for large companies managing complex supply chains. In addition, HRIAs should not be treated as an end in themselves but as a strategic tool to support broader human rights and environmental due diligence. As a result, businesses are exploring alternative approaches to traditional HRIAs—such as joint HRIAs and sector-wide reviews—to make the process more scalable and fit for purpose without compromising its rigour. Since no single method fits all circumstances, companies must carefully select an approach based on their supply chain knowledge, intended use of the findings, and contextual factors.
- Getting it right: selecting the best alternative approach to an HRIAs. So what are these alternatives to standard HRIAs? Joint Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs) offer companies a collaborative approach to HRIAs—by pooling resources and expertise from multiple buyers of the same suppliers or region. They are particularly beneficial as they enable shared and coordinated solutions. And they also ease the burden on suppliers. Their methodology remains that of a standard HRIA, with each company's individual impacts needing to be identified and analysed. An example is the Kroger (USA) and Lidl (Germany) joint HRIA of farmed shrimp production in India. There are also Sector-Wide Impact Assessments (SWIA) or landscape assessments, which enable companies to collaborate in evaluating their industry's broader human rights and environmental impacts in a particular market or for a particular part of the value chain. This approach is useful for companies operating across multiple sectors or entering new markets and can be initiated by governments or multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs). Businesses, however, have the responsibility of interpreting sector-level findings in relation to their own policies and practices. This methodology has been used in different contexts, including the salmon industry in Chile. Finally, Rapid Assessments offer a quicker alternative to standard Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs), by narrowing the focus to specific issues or suppliers. This approach is particularly useful in urgent situations, such as disasters or conflicts, where immediate information is needed. Rapid assessments are also effective when prior research or HRIAs already provide a strong understanding of human rights risks, and companies want to prioritise critical issues or allocate resources efficiently. A robust stakeholder engagement process, however, remains an essential component.
