4.2Evidence of remedy
Does the bank show how it has provided for, or cooperated in, the remediation of adverse impacts to which it identifies it has caused or contributed?
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: The UN Guiding Principles implement the UN’s “protect, respect and remedy” framework, and are grounded in the need for rights and obligations to be matched to appropriate and effective remedies when breached. Yet so far, precious few examples have been seen of banks delivering, or supporting the delivery of, remedy to rights-holders. By reporting on instances in which they have either provided remedy directly (a responsibility in circumstances where the bank has contributed to the impact), or supported, cooperated in or enabled remedy (for example, together with a client or investee company, where the bank is directly linked to an impact), banks can show that their human rights due diligence is leading to positive impacts for rights-holders on the ground.
Why this metric is important: The UN Guiding Principles implement the UN’s “protect, respect and remedy” framework, and are grounded in the need for rights and obligations to be matched to appropriate and effective remedies when breached. Yet so far, precious few examples have been seen of banks delivering, or supporting the delivery of, remedy to rights-holders. By reporting on instances in which they have either provided remedy directly (a responsibility in circumstances where the bank has contributed to the impact), or supported, cooperated in or enabled remedy (for example, together with a client or investee company, where the bank is directly linked to an impact), banks can show that their human rights due diligence is leading to positive impacts for rights-holders on the ground.
Methodology
Requirements for full and half score:
Full score: The bank is able to show a track record of providing remedy, or used its leverage to support remedy, in specific instances and provides sufficient detail (e.g. form of remedy achieved).
Half score: The bank describes one example of how it has provided remedy, or used its leverage to support remedy, for adverse human rights impacts OR the examples of remedy it provides are not sufficiently detailed (e.g. outcome or role of bank unclear).
Note: Examples of provision of remedy from the last five years will be considered for scoring.
Full methodology can be found in the report.
Full score: The bank is able to show a track record of providing remedy, or used its leverage to support remedy, in specific instances and provides sufficient detail (e.g. form of remedy achieved).
Half score: The bank describes one example of how it has provided remedy, or used its leverage to support remedy, for adverse human rights impacts OR the examples of remedy it provides are not sufficiently detailed (e.g. outcome or role of bank unclear).
Note: Examples of provision of remedy from the last five years will be considered for scoring.
Full methodology can be found in the report.
License
Topics
Framework Mappings
Value Type
Category
Options
Yes
Partially
No
Assessment
Steward Assessed