The Global Business Initiative on Human Rights (GBI) released guidance on what “good” looks like when it comes to engaging with suppliers in order to implement effective human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD) (September 2025).
Human Level’s Take:
- Engaging with suppliers is central to effective human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD). Many of the most serious human rights risks are found within supply chains, often beyond tier one, and meaningful engagement is essential to identifying, preventing, and addressing them
- That said, supplier engagement isn’t easy. Some companies manage thousands of suppliers, making the scale daunting. Many suppliers are SMEs with limited capacity for HREDD, and some may hesitate to engage due to the real or perceived costs of thorough risk assessments.
- So what does good engagement look like in practice? It starts with clarifying expectations early - for example, integrating human rights requirements into pre-bid and tender processes to set commitments from the outset. It also means formalising obligations through contracts, ensuring they reflect shared responsibilities rather than one-sided terms
- Strong engagement goes further by building supplier capacity, using training and awareness-raising tools to help suppliers put commitments into practice. Companies can also supplement audits with deeper engagement, such as confidential worker interviews, and engage workers directly through surveys, in-person discussions, or worker voice technologies that create safe channels for concerns.
- When risks are identified, companies can use their leverage to prevent or mitigate harms - working with suppliers on Corrective or Improvement Plans. If ending a relationship is not possible, continued engagement and efforts to build leverage are essential; where problems persist without progress, termination may need to be considered
- Finally, companies can support the provision of remedy, whether through financial assistance or by helping suppliers strengthen their own capacity to remediate harms
- Done well, supplier engagement not only helps manage risks but also strengthens resilience, and builds trust across the supply chain
Some key takeaways:
- The Why: Engaging with suppliers is vital for companies carrying out HREDD, as many of their most salient human rights risks relate to workers in their supply chains, often beyond tier one. Meaningful engagement can lead to suppliers becoming partners in identifying and addressing adverse impacts to people, while also strengthening supply chain resilience, building lasting partnerships, and enhancing consumer trust. When suppliers are treated as partners in responsible practices, companies can not only manage risks more effectively but also gain competitive advantages and unlock opportunities such as sustainable finance. However, companies can find engaging with suppliers to be a challenge. The scale and scope of engaging with suppliers can be enormous. Suppliers are often small-and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) so they have limited capacity to implement HREDD. In addition, suppliers may be reluctant to engage with their customers due to the perceived or actual financial costs of ensuring robust risk assessments.
- The How: In practice, companies can engage with suppliers on human rights by: 1) clarifying expectations early. Integrating human rights into pre-bid and tender processes helps set commitments from the outset. This can include assessing suppliers’ human rights practices before entering a relationship and using pre-bid questionnaires to ask suppliers about their approach to human rights and to communicate expectations; 2) aligning on human rights through contracting. Contracts can be a helpful tool to enable companies and suppliers to mutually agree on their respective human rights obligations. However, power imbalances in negotiations between the buyer and supplier can lead to one-sided clauses incompatible with human rights commitments. Examples of good practice include involving human rights teams in contract negotiations to ensure human rights expectations are embedded meaningfully and realistically into supplier relationships; translating codes of conduct on human rights into contractual terms, with accompanying measures such as Human Rights FAQs or capacity building exercises to ensure that suppliers understand and are implementing the code of conduct; and using risk-based approaches to analyse contract terms to assess whether certain contracts pose higher risks; and 3) building capacity and raising awareness of human rights issues with suppliers. This can involve many different forms and approaches. For instance, online tools and resources can be an initial first step to train suppliers at scale, helping them align with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and key legal requirements. These tools and resources can be based on key risks and real-life examples to help suppliers understand what they need to do in practice. Some companies organise “supplier forums” for CEOs to help raise awareness on human rights and reward suppliers who have demonstrated good practice. Other companies develop train-the-trainer programmes to help suppliers expand the reach of the training and tools further up the supply chain. Where a company lacks leverage with their suppliers, it can collaborate at an industry level to enhance their leverage, communicate common expectations to suppliers, and share the costs of training.
- The How (cont.): Companies can also engage suppliers on human rights by: 4) looking beyond audits and engaging suppliers to identify risks. Audits are limited in their ability to detect the full range and extent of human rights risks in companies’ value chains. Companies can supplement audits with additional engagement with suppliers and workers. For example, companies can hold confidential follow-up conversations with workers post audits. For companies with thousands of first-tier suppliers, engagement with each one is unlikely to be possible. Therefore, some companies may choose to focus additional engagement on the highest risk and critical suppliers; 5) considering a range of tools to engage workers in the value chain. These tools include in-person discussions with workers, employee surveys, and worker voice technologies. Trust building and empowering workers to raise complaints is an important part of any worker voice exercise. In addition, companies can consider providing support to suppliers who need help developing their grievance mechanisms or extend access to their own or a third-party grievance channel; 6) using leverage with suppliers to mitigate or prevent harms. For example, in response to identified risks, companies can work with suppliers to develop Corrective Action Plans or Improvement Plans in order to alleviate the impact or improve access to remedy from the supplier. In situations where a company is unable to terminate a supplier relationship for business reasons, they can continue engaging with their supplier on human rights and seek to increase leverage over time. If this is not possible, the company can consider terminating the relationship; and 7) supporting suppliers in remedying impacts. Where a company has contributed to an adverse impact, they have a responsibility to provide or enable remedy. For instance, companies can support suppliers in remedying adverse impacts by assisting with financial remediation or helping to build supplier capacity to do so.
