3.2 Adequacy of response
Does the bank's reporting provide information that is sufficient to evaluate the adequacy of its response to particular human rights impacts?
About the data
The BankTrack Global Human Rights Benchmark is an independent assessment of the world’s largest commercial banks, measuring how they respect human rights in their policies, practices, and business relationships. Built on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the benchmark evaluates banks across key themes, including policy commitments, due diligence, remedy, and specific issues such as the protection of human rights defenders, free, prior, and informed consent, and environmental rights.
Why this metric is important: To respect human rights, banks need to take steps to avoid or prevent specific human rights impacts occurring, and to address or mitigate such impacts when they do occur. Strong human rights reporting from banks, including specific examples of how impacts are prioritised and dealt with, signals transparency and accountability to relevant stakeholders, including affected people and investors. To be meaningful, reporting should be detailed enough to demonstrate actions taken were adequate in addressing impacts. By selecting examples for reporting thoughtfully and explaining their relevance, banks can demonstrate they prioritise
the most severe, and those where delayed response would make them irremediable, in line with the UN Guiding Principles’ recommended approach.
Why this metric is important: To respect human rights, banks need to take steps to avoid or prevent specific human rights impacts occurring, and to address or mitigate such impacts when they do occur. Strong human rights reporting from banks, including specific examples of how impacts are prioritised and dealt with, signals transparency and accountability to relevant stakeholders, including affected people and investors. To be meaningful, reporting should be detailed enough to demonstrate actions taken were adequate in addressing impacts. By selecting examples for reporting thoughtfully and explaining their relevance, banks can demonstrate they prioritise
the most severe, and those where delayed response would make them irremediable, in line with the UN Guiding Principles’ recommended approach.
Methodology
Requirements for full and half score:
Full score: The bank reports on how it has sought to address particular human rights impacts, and the reporting is sufficient to evaluate the adequacy of its response (e.g. describing information on sector, geographic location, concrete actions taken, follow-up steps requested from clients or investee companies.) Reporting covers three impacts at least, and where prioritisation is necessary, the bank prioritises impacts that are most severe or where delayed response would make them irremediable.
Half score: The bank reports on how it has sought to address particular human rights impacts, but the reporting is not sufficient to evaluate the adequacy of the response, is limited to one example, or does not set how impacts are prioritised for reporting (e.g. examples are presented without clarity on how they are selected).
Full methodology can be found in the report.
Full score: The bank reports on how it has sought to address particular human rights impacts, and the reporting is sufficient to evaluate the adequacy of its response (e.g. describing information on sector, geographic location, concrete actions taken, follow-up steps requested from clients or investee companies.) Reporting covers three impacts at least, and where prioritisation is necessary, the bank prioritises impacts that are most severe or where delayed response would make them irremediable.
Half score: The bank reports on how it has sought to address particular human rights impacts, but the reporting is not sufficient to evaluate the adequacy of the response, is limited to one example, or does not set how impacts are prioritised for reporting (e.g. examples are presented without clarity on how they are selected).
Full methodology can be found in the report.
License
Topics
Framework Mappings
Value Type
Category
Options
Yes
Partially
No
Assessment
Steward Assessed