Corporate Human Rights Benchmark

Advancing corporate human rights by assessing companies’ human rights commitments, due-diligence processes, and implementation efforts.

On this page

Without a strong commitment to human rights and implementation through due diligence, jobs can be precarious, communities affected, and inequalities exacerbated. The Corporate Human Rights Benchmark (CHRB) provides a comparative snapshot of the most influential companies in high-risk sectors, looking at the policies, processes and practices companies have in place to systematise their human rights approach.

Most companies continue to improve on human rights, but nearly one in four regressed since their last assessment

Compared to the last CHRB iteration, 80% of companies improved while 20% regressed or stagnated, including several former top performers. This volatility suggests that embedding human rights in corporate practice requires sustained commitment and that progress is not guaranteed to persist.

Motor vehicle manufacturing improved the most but remains the lowest-scoring sector

Motor vehicle manufacturers saw the largest sectorial improvement, gaining 16 percentage points, yet remain the lowest-scoring sector, meeting only 44% of requirements compared to 64% for extractives and 58% for food and agriculture.

Companies set human rights expectations for suppliers but fail to provide the support needed to meet them

While 87% of companies embed human rights in supplier contracts, only 39% commit to responsible purchasing practices. This gap means many suppliers are facing double demands from buyers who expect suppliers to meet standards while subjecting them to pricing pressures and delayed payments, which undermine their capacity to do so.

Supply chain transparency remains a blind spot

Despite growing regulatory expectations on supply chain due diligence, only 24% of companies disclose names and locations of significant suppliers. This opacity constrains affected stakeholders from raising concerns and limits accountability across complex supply chains.

Only 1 in 10 companies assesses how human rights impacts relate to their business model

Board review of human rights strategy rose to 75% of companies, compared with 47% in the last iteration, demonstrating a growing integration of human rights into governance practices. Yet only 10% of companies assess where human rights risks originate from or relate to their business model and strategy, a foundational step for effective due diligence under emerging regulatory frameworks.

Compare

Company scoreboard

The CHRB assesses around 100 companies operating in five high-risk sectors - food and agricultural products, apparel, extractives, ICT manufacturing and automotive manufacturing. The companies are scored across five measurement areas, each containing a series of indicators focusing on different aspects of how a business seeks to respect human rights in its own operations and supply chain.

Corporate Human Rights Benchmark

Search & filter

105

Companies listed

53.7/100

Average score

	Company Name	Total Score	Policy commitments	Board-level accountability	Embedding respect for human rights into culture and management systems	Human rights due diligence	Remedies and grievance mechanisms
1	Eni	94.4/100	50.0/100	100.0/100	93.8/100	100.0/100	100.0/100
2	Puma	92.7/100	33.3/100	100.0/100	97.1/100	95.0/100	100.0/100
3	Rio Tinto	90.0/100	75.0/100	66.7/100	88.8/100	90.0/100	100.0/100
4	Repsol	89.4/100	50.0/100	83.3/100	87.5/100	100.0/100	93.8/100
5	Freeport-McMoRan	83.8/100	75.0/100	50.0/100	82.5/100	85.0/100	93.8/100
6	Unilever	82.1/100	75.0/100	50.0/100	69.3/100	100.0/100	87.5/100
7	Coles Group	81.0/100	50.0/100	83.3/100	76.9/100	68.3/100	100.0/100
=8	Newmont	79.0/100	25.0/100	66.7/100	82.5/100	85.0/100	87.5/100
=8	Nestle	79.0/100	75.0/100	50.0/100	72.1/100	85.0/100	87.5/100
10	Fast Retailing	78.9/100	83.3/100	66.7/100	76.9/100	63.3/100	93.8/100

Methodology

Read methodology

Measurement areas of Corporate Human Rights Benchmark



Policy commitments

This measurement area focuses on a company’s human rights-related policy commitments. The indicators aim to assess the extent to which a company acknowledges its responsibility to respect human rights, and how it formally incorporates this into publicly available statements of policy.

Indicators for this measurement area

Commitment to respect human rights The company publicly commits to respect all internationally recognised human rights across its activities.

Commitment to respect the human rights of workers The company publicly commits to respect the principles concerning fundamental rights at work in the 11 ILO core conventions as set out in the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (see box below). It also has a publicly available statement of policy committing it to respect the human rights of workers in its business relationships

Commitment to respect working hours The company publicly states that workers shall not be required to work more than 48 hours in a regular work week or 60 hours including overtime. The company also states that overtime work must be consensual and be paid at a premium rate. It also places equivalent expectations on its business relationships.

Commitment to remedy The company publicly commits to provide or cooperate in remediation for affected individuals, workers and communities through legitimate processes (including judicial and non-judicial mechanisms, as appropriate), where it identifies that it has caused or contributed to adverse impacts.



Board-level accountability

This measurement area focuses the role of the highest governance body with respect to human rights. The indicators seek to assess how the company’s board’s signals the importance of human rights and ensures coherence between the responsibility to respect human rights and wider business activities.

Indicators for this measurement area

Commitment from the top The company’s human rights policy commitments are communicated at board level, and a board member or board committee oversees the company’s strategy, policies and processes for respecting human rights. The board member or board committee possesses relevant knowledge, skills and competence in the area of human rights. Board members or the chief executive officer (CEO) talk publicly about the company’s approach to addressing risks to people and the importance of human rights to the business.

Board responsibility The company has processes in place at board level to discuss and address human rights issues and how they fit within the company’s overall purpose and strategy. Alternatively, a board committee regularly reviews the company’s strategy, policy and management processes, as well as challenges and progress in managing human rights issues, and provides examples of what was discussed. These discussions are informed by the experiences of affected stakeholders or external human rights experts.

Business model, strategy and risks The company considers and addresses, at board level, the impacts of its strategy and business model on the human rights of affected stakeholders. The term ‘business model’ refers to the value a company seeks to deliver, and to whom and how it delivers that value in pursuit of commercial success. Business model choices are linked to strategy and are governed by the board and shaped by senior management.



Embedding respect for human rights into culture and management systems

25%

This measurement area assesses the extent of systems and processes established to implement the company’s policy commitments in practice. The indicators seek to assess how the company’s human rights policy commitments are embedded in company culture and across its management systems and day-to-day activities, including within the management systems covering its business relationships.

Indicators for this measurement area

Responsibility and resources for day-to-day human rights functions The company outlines senior-level responsibility for human rights as well as the organisation of the day-to-day responsibility for human rights across relevant internal functions. This includes responsibility for the ILO core labour standards at a minimum. The company also allocates resources and expertise for the day-to-day management of human rights within its operations and business relationships.

Incentives and performance management The company provides incentives to senior managers linked to implementation of the company’s human rights policy commitments or targets. The company also reviews other senior managers’ incentives to ensure coherence with its human rights policy commitments.

Communication/dissemination of policy commitment(s) The company communicates its human rights policy commitment(s) to employees, other workers, business relationships as well as to external stakeholders, in particular affected stakeholders. In addition, it reflects its human rights commitments within the terms of its contracts (or other equivalent, binding arrangements) with business relationships. This includes the ILO core labour standards at a minimum.

Training on human rights The company trains its workers and business relationships on its human rights policy commitment(s). This includes the ILO core labour standards at a minimum.

Engaging and terminating business relationships The company takes human rights considerations into account when deciding to engage or terminate business relationships. This includes offering incentives and support to business relationships to meet the company’s requirements.

Aligning purchasing decisions with human rights The company ensures coherence between its purchasing policies and practices and its human rights commitment(s) and pays suppliers in line with agreed timeframes and for the amount agreed in the payment terms. It also communicates production needs to suppliers ahead of time. Additionally, the company mitigates negative human rights impacts of its purchasing practices in planning, merchandising and costing, and it includes commitments to implement responsible purchasing practices in contractual or other binding arrangements with its suppliers.

Mapping and disclosing the supply chain The company maps its suppliers and discloses its mapping publicly. To increase visibility of the supply chain and reduce human rights risks, this process should include identifying higher-risk activities, geographies and products, and disclosing the names and specific locations of suppliers who make up the most significant parts of the company’s supply chain. This information should be provided for stakeholders in a usable format (e.g. downloadable, machine-readable)



Human rights due diligence

25%

This measurement area focuses on the specific systems the company has in place for conducting due diligence processes to assess the real-time risks to human rights that the company poses, to integrate and act on these findings so as to prevent and mitigate the impacts, and to track and communicate those actions. The indicators are aligned with the human rights due diligence steps in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Indicators for this measurement area

Identifying human rights risks and impacts The company proactively identifies its human rights risks and impacts on an on-going basis, including when these are triggered by key moments in the company’s activities (e.g. policy change, market entry, new projects). This includes engaging with stakeholders and vulnerable groups as part of the identification process.

Assessing human rights risks and impacts Having identified its human rights risks and impacts, the company assesses them and then prioritises its salient human rights risks and impacts. This includes engaging with stakeholders and vulnerable groups as part of the assessment process.

Integrating and acting on human rights risks and impact assessments The company integrates the findings of its assessments of human rights risks and impacts into relevant internal functions and processes in order to take appropriate actions to prevent, mitigate or remediate its salient human rights risks and impacts. This includes engaging with stakeholders and vulnerable groups on any action taken or to be taken.

Tracking the effectiveness of actions to respond to human rights risks and impacts The company tracks and evaluates the effectiveness of actions taken in response to its human rights risks and impacts and describes how it uses that information to improve processes and systems on an ongoing basis. This includes engaging with stakeholders and vulnerable groups when evaluating the effectiveness of any action taken.

Communicating on human rights impacts The company communicates externally how it addresses its human rights impacts (i.e. throughout its due diligence process(es)) in a manner that is accessible to its intended audiences, especially affected stakeholders who have raised concerns. These communications also provide enough information to evaluate the adequacy of the response(s) and do not pose risks to affected stakeholders or personnel. Such communications should provide accurate, balanced and complete information.



Remedies and grievance mechanisms

34%

This measurement area focuses on the extent to which a company provides remedy for actual adverse impacts on human rights. It covers a company’s approach to providing or cooperating in remediation when human rights harms – actual human rights impacts – have occurred. The indicators aim to assess whether a company has appropriate processes in place so that grievances may be addressed early and remediated directly where appropriate. They also assess the company’s willingness to participate in other remedy options and its approach to litigation concerning credible allegations of human rights impacts.

Indicators for this measurement area

Grievance mechanism(s) for workers The company has one or more mechanisms (its own, third party or shared) through which workers can raise complaints or concerns, including in relation to human rights issues. The mechanism(s) is available to all workers and takes into account accessibility by marginalised groups.

Grievance mechanism(s) for external individuals and communities The company has one or more mechanisms (its own, third party or shared) through which individuals and communities who may be adversely impacted by the company can raise complaints or concerns, including in relation to human rights issues. The mechanism(s) is available to all external individuals and communities and takes into account accessibility by marginalised groups.

Procedures related to the grievance mechanism(s) are equitable, publicly available and explained The company describes how complaints or concerns are received, processed and addressed. It also describes how those making complaints are informed throughout the process as well as how complaints may be escalated or withdrawn. In addition, the company takes steps to ensure equitable access to and participation in grievance process(es) through the provision of technical, financial or advisory support, as may be appropriate in light of the mandate, objectives and operations of the grievance mechanism(s). This includes an explanation of what outcomes the grievance mechanism(s) can and cannot offer to users in the form of remedy(ies) (including financial and non-financial).

Remedying adverse impacts The company provides or cooperates in remediation (see definition below) to victims where it has identified that it has caused or contributed to adverse human rights impacts (or others have brought such information to the company’s attention, such as through its grievance mechanism(s)). It also incorporates changes to systems, processes (e.g. human rights due diligence processes) and practices to prevent similar adverse impacts in the future.

Access this data

Explore the latest data, download for further analysis or integrate into your own workflows using our API.

Download dataset Access our API Review previous benchmark

Subscribe to stay informed on our work

Keep up to date with all the latest from World Benchmarking Alliance

Join our newsletter