Why Thematic Human Rights Assessments Will Matter Now More Than Ever

Human rights assessments that examine broad themes, dilemmas, and topics—and which are not necessarily attached to a single company—can be pursued more deliberately in today’s business and human rights context. This blog seeks to describe why.

Human rights assessments can take many forms, such as assessments focused on a specific country, a new product, or a potential business relationship. However, in my experience, the most enduring assessments address big strategic questions where noteworthy decisions, strategic shifts, or industry trends with long-term significance for human rights are explored.

Meta’s human rights assessment of end-to-end encryption, Ericsson’s human assessment of 5G, and GIFCT’s human rights assessment of tech industry counterterrorism efforts are publicly available examples of this form of thematic human rights assessment.[1] Other companies have also commissioned human rights assessments that have been similarly substantial and thematic but have remained confidential, such as assessments dealing with artificial intelligence.

A key characteristic of these thematic assessments is meaningful analysis of challenging dilemmas that have not been fully addressed before and where reasonable people could disagree. They follow a human rights methodology but are not overly scripted or formulaic; they are often narrative-based, convey novel thinking, and make for an engaging read.

However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for individual companies to embark upon this type of ambitious, creative, and thematic human rights assessment in today’s context. Two important countervailing forces are at play.

The first countervailing force is the need to comply with EU due diligence laws, such as the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) and the upcoming EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D). These regulations (quite rightly) require human rights due diligence discipline from companies but don’t lend themselves to the more free-flowing, discursive, and analytical style that thematic assessments often adopt. These laws don’t prevent thematic evaluations but place emphasis elsewhere and make them less likely.

The second countervailing force is the political context swinging to the extreme right in the US and other parts of the world. It remains to be seen how the Trump administration will unfold, but it is hard to imagine companies placing big bets on cutting-edge thematic human rights analysis before the political context changes.

However, I have increasingly come to believe that the significance of these thematic human rights assessments is how they improve our shared understanding of an issue and carry value far beyond their attachment to any specific company or organization. The Meta and Ericsson assessments were relevant for each company, but their analysis of the human rights risks and opportunities associated with their chosen theme had much broader value, too. These thematic assessments need not be commissioned by companies; multi-stakeholder initiatives, industry associations, and foundations could just as effectively initiate them. One example is BSR’s upcoming human rights assessment of the generative AI value chain.

Many topics of enormous relevance to human rights today reach beyond the boundary of any single company and would benefit from similarly ambitious, strategic, and thematic human rights assessments. Examples that come to mind include the human rights risks and opportunities associated with targeted advertising, generative AI, cryptocurrency, surveillance, the energy transition, autonomous vehicles, technology use in national security, internet governance, and technology deployment in workplaces. These are all mega-themes that require our attention and high-quality human rights analysis. Human right assessments of these themes would:

• Provide new human rights-based analysis to inform decision-making in many companies, strengthen the hands of human rights teams, and improve the quality of stakeholder dialogue.

• Address big strategic topics or challenging dilemmas upon which many reasonable people may disagree.

• Provide relevance across many different regions and geographies.

• Inform public policy, regulation, and multi-stakeholder collaboration across systems far more significant than any single company.

These features are similar to a “sector-wide human rights impact assessment”, defined and implemented by the Danish Institute for Human Rights and the Institute for Human Rights and Business. However, while thematic human rights assessments take inspiration from sector-wide assessments, they are not necessarily limited by industry or geography.

Faced with the complexity of compliance and constrained by politics, the business and human rights field may benefit from additional tools and methods. Thematic human rights assessments are not an alternative to individual companies complying with “the letter” of due diligence laws; however, they may enhance compliance with “the spirit” of due diligence, introduce new analysis on challenging dilemmas, and foster more informed approaches to respect for human rights.

[1] I was involved in the Meta and GIFCT assessments but not the Ericsson assessment.