State of the Art and Challenges
PUBLIC ACTION
PRIVATE ACTION
Examples: Trade
Agreements, Government
Programs
 Covers the government
duty to protect, respect
and fulfill human rights
 Covers specially affected
groups and broad societal
impacts


Examples: Mines, oil and
gas fields, plantations,
factories
 Covers the corporate duty
to respect human rights
 Covers specially affected
groups and specific
impacts of corporate
operations
Norm: United Nations Guiding Principles
on Business and Human Rights (2011)
 Requires companies to act with “due
diligence”
 HRIA is a form of due diligence
 Many transnational companies now
attempting to do HRIAs

Not public
 No standard method
 No established expertise inside the
company
 No established expertise among
consultants
 Little guidance in the academic
literature

Kayelekera
Marlin
Nuiguyo
Tampakan
Canatuan
Owner
Paladin
Goldcorp
Aimec
Xstrata
TVI Pacific
Mineral
Uranium
Gold
Gold
Copper, Gold
Gold
Country
Malawi
Guatemala
Indonesia
Philippines
Philippines
Performed
by
Nomogaia
(Think Tank)
On Common Nomogaia
Ground
(Think Tank)
(Consultants)
Institute for
Rights and
Development Democracy
and Peace,
(NGOs)
Bread for All
(NGOs)
Date
2009-present
2010
2013
2009
2007
Kayelekera
Marlin
Nuiguyo
Tampakan
Canatuan
Affected
Corporate
Behavior
Yes
No
No (project
sold to new
company)
No
No
Phase
Construction,
Operations
Operations
PreConstruction
PreConstruction
Operations
Snapshot or Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Snapshot
Snapshot
Snapshot
Snapshot
Recommend Yes <10
ations?
Yes >50
Yes <10
No
Yes – to halt
operations
Kayelekera
Method Notes NomoGaia
methodology;
Intensive,
Expansive,
Rightsholder
Engagement
Marlin
Nuiguyo
Tampakan
Canatuan
HRA only,
Assesses
community
opposition
Early Nomogaia
methodology;
Desktop
Danish Institute,
Nomogaia
(claimed);
Assesses
community
opposition
Community
Based, Assesses
community
opposition
No – no stated
process for
prioritizing human
rights risks
Method
Transparency
Yes – human rights
“indicators”/topics
linked directly to
human rights
conclusions and
recommendations
No – unstructured No – ratings not
findings with no
directly linked to
prioritization of
data
issues
No – no stated
process for
prioritizing human
rights risks
Criticisms
Should have
started before
construction
Ineffective,
community
uncooperative
Not implemented
(project sold)
Biased against the Biased against the
company and
company and
project
project
Partial (not the
key Sipacapa
people)
No
No (stakeholders
only)
Yes
Engage
Rightsholders?
Yes
Paladin’s Kayelekera Uranium Mine in Malawi
Open Pit Uranium
Mine
Operator Paladin
(Africa) Ltd.
Owned:
85% Paladin
Resources Ltd.
(Australia)
15% Government of
Malawi
Project
(medium size open pit uranium mine and mill)
Context
(Northern Malawi:
sparse poor rural population,
weak infrastructure)
Company
(Paladin: Australia based
medium size
company, good policies and short
track record)
Labor
Health
Environment
Political/
Legal
Economic/
Cultural/
Social
Sub-Categories
Wages
Unions
Exploitive Practices
Discrimination
Labor Laws
Project employment profile
Health Regulations
Underlying Determinants
Access and Infrastructure
Food
Infectious Diseases
HIA
Risks to Safety & Health
Surface and Groundwater
Geology/Ecosystem
Air
Form of Government
Strength of Civil Society
Law Systems
Strength of Governance
Nondiscrimination Regulations
Civil War/Conflict/Security
Demographics/ Psychology
Economics
Indigenous Peoples
Education
National Culture
Local Cultures
Land Project Occupies
Rights
Topics
Catalogs
Rights
Context
20 rights are shown to
be positively protected
or negatively enforced
at baseline, including
Freedom from Child
Labor,
Freedom of Religion,
Indigenous Rights,
Unionization Rights
21 Context
Topics,
13 Project
Topics
31 Context
Topics,
18 Project
Topics
33 Context
Topics,
30 Project
Topics
28 Context
Topics,
9 Project
Topics
Project
Company
15 rights are shown to
be positively or
negatively impacted by
the Project, including
Child Labor, Indigenous
Rights, Union Rights and
Free Expression
Impact
Category
Baseline
Scores
28% of children ages 5 to 17 are economically active.
The Government keeps no statistics on child labor,
seeing it as a complex issue involving family needs.
Families rent out children for labor at a rate of
$7/month.
In the Project area around 7,500 minors between the
ages of 10 and 14 work at least half-days in some sort
of informal job. Local children generally enter the
labor market between the ages of 10 and 12.
Bolivian law sets the minimum age for employment at
14 years. Children ages 6-14 may legally work as
apprentices for a maximum of two years and must
simultaneously attend school at normal school hours.
There is minimal enforcement of these laws, as the
Bolivian government sees child labor as a complex
challenge and a symptom of other economic woes in
the country.
Child labor is mentioned in GRI reporting, but no due
diligence has been conducted to ensure that children
are excluded from Project supply chain, particularly in
unregulated jewelry factories and tailors that provide
products to the Project.
The company has no history employing child labor or
using child labor in its supply chain
30 Context
Topics,
21 Project
Topics
-12 to -25
-0.5 to -12
Baseline
-9
0.5 to 12
Right
Impact
Freedom from Child Labor
0.66
12 to 25
-15
-15
3
-3
5






HIV/Aids: There will be a significant increase in rates without
strenuous additional efforts. (Strong Negative)
Water Quality: Negative impacts on water downstream. (Negative,
but may be mitigated or offset by multi-million dollar water
treatment system)
Discrimination: Hiring is of men from Southern Malawi - no efforts to
recruit or train locals or women. (Negative)
Food: No significant productive land lost to project. Project sources
food locally. Increase in local demand has inflated prices for
consumers and farmers. (Mixed)
Labor standards: Safe healthy work environment. (Strong Positive)
Standard of Living: For many employees significantly increased.
(Strong Positive)

Need a different methodology from
large footprint corporate HRIAs to
consider systematic impacts

Need to consider human right duties
of companies and governments



Needs to measure the systematic human
rights impacts: increased water use in a
water stressed country or subsidy for large
agriculture?
Needs to measure direct effects of
footprint: land use changes, people are
displaced
Both are relevant to development
HRIA of Corporate Projects
 Still in its infancy
 Need for a leading methodology
 Need for transparency, criticism, improvement
HRIA of Infrastructure Projects
 Just beginning
 Methodology must consider footprint and
system effects