The UN Global Compact Network - France (UNGC France) published the English translation of its Practical Guide for Business on Affected Communities: Adopting a Human Rights-based Approach for Meaningful Engagement and Effective Impact Management (November 2025). The guidance was developed with perspectives of local communities, among other stakeholders, and has a number of examples and case studies throughout to illustrate good practice.
Human Level’s Take:
- Meaningful stakeholder engagement is a business must-have. It can help companies spot risks early, prevent disruptions, strengthen legitimacy and improve projects to align better with community and business needs. Meanwhile, failing to engage raises legal, reputational and operational risks.
- And engagement isn’t just for companies operating in close proximity to local communities, like mining, agriculture and construction. It also needs to be undertaken by companies further from value chain impacts, although the shape and approach of it will differ. For these companies, it is also valuable to understand what to expect from suppliers of materials and services who come into direct proximity with local communities.
- So what does meaningful engagement with affected communities look like? The UN Global Compact Network - France outlines some core criteria. Engagement needs to be transparent, reciprocal, conducted in good faith, receptive and responsive to stakeholder views, accessible (especially to the most vulnerable), appropriate, safe for community members and staff, inclusive, regular and at the appropriate level.
- The guide walks through seven basic steps of meaningful engagement: (1) identifying affected communities; (2) setting up a governance framework to establish who engages on behalf of the business; (3) developing a participatory, inclusive and tailored engagement plan; (4) engaging through the life of the project, from initial planning and scoping to closure and post-closure; (5) setting up tailored, effective grievance mechanisms; (6) ensuring effective remediation is provided; and (7) tracking and communicating about the process and outcomes of engagement practices.
Some key takeaways:
- Why effective engagement matters for companies: There are a few reasons why engagement is important. Proactive, meaningful engagement with affected communities helps identify early warnings of potential or actual adverse impacts, enabling more effective anticipation and mitigation of risks. Also, engaging affected communities helps businesses maintain legitimacy, reduce operational risks from potential community resistance, avoid costly disruptions, and improve projects or strategic decisions by ensuring they align with community and business needs. In addition, insufficient engagement with affected communities increases legal and reputational risks, including human rights allegations, litigation, complaints to non-judicial bodies like the National Contact Points under the OECD Guidelines, and media scrutiny.
- What meaningful engagement looks like: The guidance outlines some core criteria for meaningful engagement. Engagement needs to be two-way, sharing decision-making power; based in a commitment to open and honest dialogue; receptive, meaning that opinions of stakeholders directly influence decisions or if not, then the reasons why are communicated; backed by a willingness to take action and follow through on outcomes; physically accessible and support is provided for stakeholders to access venues, if needed; more frequent and in-depth dialogue for more severe potential impacts; safe for all stakeholders, including communities and company liaison officers; inclusive of different groups — especially vulnerable groups; undertaken at legitimate decision-making levels within communities, without sidelining the views of stakeholders who may not be represented by formal leadership; and maintained regularly, with regular feedback from dialogues.
- Seven steps towards meaningful stakeholder engagement: First, identify who should be engaged. This differs depending on the scope of the business. For companies that do not come into direct contact with affected communities on the ground, visibility of stakeholders can be limited, so these companies should take both upstream and downstream stakeholders into account, prioritising engagement based on the severity or likelihood of the impact. For companies that interact directly with affected communities, like agriculture, mining and construction, prioritising engagement should be based on those communities within the project’s area of influence, which can mean geographic proximity and proximity to impacts. Second, set up a governance framework for the engagement and decide who engages on behalf of the business. This includes dedicated liaison officers, effective coordination between head office and field teams, and sufficient long-term resources for engagement. Third, develop a participatory, inclusive and tailored engagement plan to serve as the basis for community engagement and promote transparency and respect for stakeholders. Some key elements include clear engagement principles and standards; a description of activities and their potential impacts; commitments to information quality and communication; a timeline and objectives; consideration of diverse stakeholders; engagement methods; conflict management via grievance mechanisms; and defined budgets and responsibilities. Fourth, engage throughout the lifecycle of a project, including in initial planning and exploration phases and in post-closure. Engagement should be planned in advance of each stage, ensuring that there is a clear roadmap that can be tailored to the stage of the project. The report also includes more detailed guidance on ensuring respect for the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent when engaging with Indigenous Peoples, how to engage with sensitivity with vulnerable groups, and how to engage in a conflict or high-risk context. Fifth, set up effective grievance mechanisms. These should be adapted to the local context and intended users, developed collaboratively with communities, and in line with the UN Guiding Principles’ Effectiveness Criteria for operational grievance mechanisms. Companies can also consider using multi-stakeholder grievance mechanisms where they operate in the same places or with the same suppliers as others. This can help avoid duplication and increase effectiveness and consistency. Sixth, ensure that grievance mechanisms lead to concrete results. Remediation measures can be individual or collective, designed with the input of local communities, adapted to the local context and accessible for vulnerable groups. Seventh, implement KPIs to assess the effectiveness of grievance mechanisms and community engagement, including those that cover both the process itself and the outcomes.
