Measuring Progress on B Lab’s Human Rights Standards

A company’s commitment to human rights begins with a simple premise: people matter. From factory floors to corporate offices, from local communities to global supply chains, businesses affect lives every day. When companies prioritize dignity, minimize harm, and take responsibility for their impact on all the lives they touch, they lay the groundwork for truly responsible business.

B Lab’s Human Rights requirements (HR1–HR4) provide a structure for that responsibility. They help organizations identify where harm might occur, how to address it, and how to build systems that uphold people’s rights over time. But intentions aren’t enough. To improve, companies need to track progress.

This guide outlines key metrics to help organizations evaluate where they stand today, clarify priorities, and take action with accountability. While the metrics recommended may not work for all companies, they provide a valid starting point for considering their own evaluation and improvement efforts. Companies can determine the best way to track and make progress on human rights by reviewing the B Lab Standards internally.

Why Human Rights Metrics Matter

Protecting human rights requires structure, discipline, and follow-through. That’s where metrics come in. When human rights due diligence is vague or reactive, critical risks can go unnoticed until the harm is already done.

​Human rights due diligence asks companies to operate with care and be mindful of potential negative impacts on people, including employees, workers in the supply chain, buyers, consumers, and clients. It’s a broad and sometimes daunting scope, but the key is knowing where to focus. Effective due diligence means operating with your “eyes open”: being self-aware, proactive, and sincere in examining how your operations affect people’s lives. It also means constant learning and a commitment to continuous improvement, much like how food safety or financial due diligence have become mainstream expectations.

Clear metrics ground this work in visibility and action. They help companies connect their ethical commitments to day-to-day operations, making it easier to identify gaps, align teams, and invest in what matters most.

Tracking the right outcomes enables companies to:

• Focus resources where risks are most severe, likely, or systemic
• Align with international frameworks like the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, OECD Guidelines, and investor ESG expectations
• Build internal accountability across teams, regions, and supply chains
• Earn trust through transparency and follow-through
• Identify, prevent, and mitigate risks before they lead to harm, disruption, or legal exposure

• Have we made a public human rights commitment, and are we putting it into practice?
• Where are our biggest human rights risks, and are we acting on them in time?
• Are our people, partners, and systems equipped to prevent and respond to harm?
• Are the people most affected by our operations being heard; and is their input shaping our decisions?

How to Measure Progress on HR1: Public Human Rights Commitment

• Smaller companies may meet this requirement through a public commitment (HR1.1): a clear, visible statement that outlines your company’s position on human rights. This applies to all small and micro companies, as well as some medium companies in lower-impact service sectors.
• Medium and larger companies in higher-impact sectors, along with all large, extra-large, and extra-extra-large companies, are required to have a public policy (HR1.2): a formal document that includes your commitments and provides more detail on implementation, governance, and accountability.

1. Presence of a public human rights policy (Y/N). (HR1.2: Required for medium and larger companies in scope.) Check your company website and internal knowledge hubs: is there a clear, accessible policy that defines your human rights commitments and expectations? If not, and if your company is in scope, create a draft aligned with frameworks like the UNGPs.
2. Presence of a public human rights commitment (Y/N). (HR1.1: Required for smaller companies in scope.) Even if you’re not required to have a full policy, make your stance clear and public. Ensure it’s easy to find and written in plain language.
3. % of key stakeholders engaged in policy development. (HR1.1 & HR1.2: Applies to all companies except those without workers.) Document who was consulted in creating or updating your commitment or policy. Include internal stakeholders (e.g., employees, Legal, Procurement) and external voices (e.g., worker groups, community leaders, NGOs). A strong policy reflects real input, not just top-down intent.
4. Frequency of public reporting or updates. (HR1.1 & HR1.2: Applies to all companies in scope.) Track how often your commitment or policy is reviewed and revised. Updates should respond to new risks, market conditions, or operating geographies. Consider setting an annual or biennial review cycle.
5.  Alignment with international frameworks. (HR1.1 & HR1.2: Applies to all companies in scope.) Cross-reference your policy with the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines to ensure it reflects the full due diligence process, including stakeholder engagement and access to remedy. Document any gaps and your plans for alignment.
6. % of core functions trained on the commitment. (HR1.1 & HR1.2: Applies to all companies in scope.) Human rights don’t live in one department. Track training completion across Procurement, Operations, Human Resources, Legal, and senior leadership. Include new hire onboarding and refresher cycles.
7. Policy accessibility and visibility. (HR1.2: Required for companies in scope; HR1.1: Best practice) Evaluate whether your policy is easy to find and understand. Is it available in relevant languages? Is it linked in employee handbooks, onboarding portals, or supplier codes of conduct?
8. Employee awareness of the policy. (HR1.2: Required for companies in scope; HR1.1: Best practice) Use surveys, focus groups, or training assessments to gauge employee understanding. Awareness should include not just what the policy says, but also where to go with questions or concerns, closing the loop between policy and practice.

How to Measure Progress on HR2: Identification & Strategy for Salient Human Rights Issues

To meet HR2, companies must go beyond broad commitments and identify the specific human rights issues they’re most likely to cause or contribute to. These are known as salient issues—those that are both severe in impact and likely to occur. Knowing which issues are most salient enables the company to know where the priority risks are. This means they can focus on the areas that matter most and direct resources there.

In the B Impact Assessment, HR2 requirements generally apply to medium and larger companies, with the exact scope depending on sector and size. Small and micro companies, and companies without workers, are out of scope for most HR2 requirements.

​The right metrics ensure that human rights due diligence is focused, actionable, and aligned with where the greatest risks (and responsibilities) lie. Where a metric is required only for certain company sizes/sectors, it’s noted in parentheses.

1. Status of saliency assessment updates. (HR2.1 and HR2.2: Required for medium and larger companies in all listed sectors.) Track whether a saliency assessment has been conducted and updated within the past three years, in line with the standard.
2. # of salient issues addressed by a policy or procedure. (HR2.6: Required for medium and larger companies in Wholesale/Retail, Service with Significant Footprint, Manufacturing, and Agriculture.) By Year 3, companies are expected to have policies or procedures covering all identified salient issues. Tracking the number of issues covered at Years 1 and 2 provides a clear view of progress toward full compliance.
3. # of workers that have received tailored guidance. (HR2.7: Same scope as HR2.6). Tracking how many workers receive role-specific or context-specific guidance helps ensure salient issues are addressed in practice. Since full implementation may take time, measuring progress year over year can highlight whether the company is on track to reach full coverage.
4. Level of stakeholder involvement in saliency assessment. (HR2.6: Same scope as HR2.3.) Human rights risks are best identified by those most affected. Track whether workers, unions, community leaders, or civil society groups were consulted. Qualitative inputs provide essential context and signal authentic engagement.

How to Measure Progress on HR3: Prevention, Mitigation, & Remedy Actions

To meet HR3, companies must not only identify human rights risks; they must also take meaningful action to prevent, mitigate, and remediate harm. That includes establishing trusted grievance channels, responding quickly and transparently when issues arise, and tackling root causes to prevent recurrence.

In the B Impact Assessment, HR3 requirements vary widely by size, sector, and industry. Most apply only to medium and larger companies, with certain sub-requirements specific to high-impact sectors or even particular industries. Small and micro companies are in scope only for select requirements.

When done well, prevention, mitigation, and remedy actions build trust with workers, communities, and regulators while reducing the risk of lawsuits, labor disruptions, and reputational damage. The following metrics assess whether these mechanisms are not just in place, but actively supporting accountability and resolution. Where applicable, scope is noted in parentheses:

1. Ratio of remediated to unresolved cases affecting impacted individuals. (HR3.2: Required for medium companies in higher-impact sectors and large companies in lower-impact service.) This metric focuses on outcomes: how many reported cases result in a concrete remedy for affected stakeholders versus those still pending. Disaggregate by geography and relationship to the company where relevant to assess whether remedy is reaching all groups.
2. Ratio of closed to open human rights cases. (HR3.3: Applies to listed industries in Service with Minor Environmental Footprint; all company sizes in those industries, including companies without workers.) This metric evaluates system effectiveness: whether human rights issues raised through any channel—such as grievance submissions, NGO or media reports, or worker and union feedback—actually move through the process to formal closure. A high closure rate signals that the system itself is functioning and not stalling cases indefinitely.
3. Frequency of training on prevention and escalation procedures. (HR3.2: Applies to Large, X Large, and XX Large companies in all industries.) Regular training ensures employees and managers know how to spot early warning signs, escalate concerns, and uphold human rights responsibilities. Track participation rates and training frequency by role and region.
4. Average response time to reported human rights violations. (HR3.4: investment-related, certain listed industries in Service with Minor Environmental Footprint, all sizes.) Timely action is essential for preventing harm from escalating. Monitor how long it takes from the time an issue is reported to the first formal response. Set internal benchmarks and track whether response times are improving.
5. Ratio of prevention to mitigation actions taken. (HR3.5: Required for X Large and XX Large companies in all sectors and industries.) Distinguish between proactive measures that prevent harm from occurring (e.g., product redesign, policy change) and those that mitigate impacts once they arise (e.g., safety warnings, remediation programs). Tracking the ratio highlights whether your company is prioritizing upstream prevention alongside downstream mitigation.
6. # of allegations investigated annually. (HR3.1 & HR3.2: Applies across company sizes depending on sector risk.) Track how many reported human rights allegations your company formally investigates each year. Monitoring investigation volume, timelines, and outcomes demonstrates that concerns are taken seriously and handled with due process.
7. % of clients screened for negative human rights impacts. (HR3.3: Applies to professional services companies, such as consultancies, in scope industries.) Track what share of your client base has undergone human rights due diligence each year. While the requirement is to screen at least the three most material clients, higher screening coverage signals stronger risk management and accountability.
8. % of investments screened for negative human rights impacts. (HR3.4: Applies to equity investing and investment advising companies in scope industries.) Track the proportion of investment opportunities reviewed through a human rights lens each year. As with client screening, the baseline is three material investments annually, but more comprehensive screening reflects deeper integration of human rights considerations into core business strategy.

How to Measure Progress on HR4: Supplier Engagement on Human Rights

HR4 applies broadly across medium and larger companies, with scope and timing depending on company size, sector, and sub-requirement. Some requirements begin at Year 0 (e.g., integrating human rights into procurement decisions and addressing living wage in service contracts), while others are phased in at Year 3 or Year 5 (e.g., supplier monitoring, sourcing commitments, and raw material traceability). Covered sectors include Wholesale/Retail, Manufacturing, Agriculture, Service with Significant Footprint, and Service with Minor Footprint.

Lasting progress depends on building shared responsibility with suppliers: embedding human rights expectations into contracts, training, and ongoing capacity-building. At its core, this work is about protecting people in the supply chain: reducing harm, upholding dignity, and ensuring fair treatment for workers and communities.

Proactive engagement not only strengthens performance across the supply chain and reduces reputational risk, but also supports continuity in production and meets rising investor and consumer expectations around ethical sourcing. The following metrics assess whether supplier partnerships are consistent, accountable, and aligned with long-term human rights goals:

1. % of suppliers covered by engagement and monitoring processes. (HR4.1: Applies from year 3 to medium and larger companies in manufacturing and wholesale/retail sectors.) Track what share of suppliers are included in processes that assess, monitor, and address human rights risks. Because HR4.1 requires companies to acknowledge limits on supplier engagement, expanding monitoring coverage over time demonstrates greater control and oversight across the supply base.
2. % of prioritized suppliers with agreed human rights mitigation plans in place. (HR4.4: Applies from Year 0 to Large and larger companies in wholesale/retail, services with significant environmental footprint, manufacturing, and agriculture.) Track how many prioritized suppliers have concrete prevention/mitigation targets agreed upon, with annual progress monitoring. Over time, expand this to include outcomes recorded in Years 3 and 5.
3. % of collaborative capacity-building initiatives with suppliers. (HR4.5: Applies to medium and larger companies; especially relevant for high-risk supply chains.) Measure how often your company engages in joint efforts with suppliers to improve human rights outcomes (e.g., co-hosted trainings, toolkits, shared resources). This signals long-term investment over punitive enforcement.
4. % of supplier issues remediated within a set time. (HR4.8: Applies to medium and larger companies; most critical in high-risk sectors.) Establish a timeframe (e.g., 30, 60, or 90 days) for resolving human rights issues or negative impacts identified through audits, assessments, or other monitoring processes. Track how many suppliers meet that timeline and use the data to improve remediation and prevention practices.
5. Average time from issue identification to resolution. (HR4.8: Same scope as above.) Track the length of time it takes from when a supplier-related human rights issue is first identified to when it’s fully resolved. Faster, more consistent resolution indicates maturity in supplier oversight and relationship management.
6. % of procurement decisions that considered human rights impacts. (HR4.2 & HR4.3: Applies to medium and larger companies in all industries, with heightened expectations in higher-impact sectors.) Track how often human rights factors are explicitly weighed in procurement choices (e.g., vendor selection, contract renewals). While HR4.2 and HR4.3 require companies to evaluate the top five material decisions, expanding this practice across more decisions shows deeper integration of human rights into day-to-day purchasing.
7. % of raw materials assessed to identify the high-risk ones. (HR4.6 & HR4.7: Applies to medium and larger companies in manufacturing and extractive industries; higher thresholds for X Large and XX Large companies.) Measure how much of your raw material spend has been evaluated for human rights risks such as child labor, forced labor, or unsafe working conditions. HR4.6 and HR4.7 focus on assessing priority inputs, but increasing coverage over time strengthens supply chain transparency and enables targeted mitigation where risks are greatest.

These indicators help move supplier engagement from a static checklist to a dynamic, values-aligned partnership. By embedding human rights expectations across sourcing, contracting, and capacity-building processes, companies create more resilient supply chains, and play a direct role in reducing harm across global operations.

Moving from Measurement to Transformation

Meeting B Lab’s Human Rights Standards isn’t just a compliance exercise; it’s a commitment to protecting people and reshaping business for the better. Companies that meet these standards earn trust across their ecosystems—with workers, suppliers, customers, and regulators—by showing that dignity and fairness guide how they operate.

The metrics in this article are tools to help chart that path. They highlight gaps between intention and impact, reveal opportunities for improvement, and provide benchmarks to measure progress over time. Metrics alone won’t create change, but they give companies the clarity needed to take meaningful steps toward the standards and beyond.

Header Photo by Emmanuel Ikwuegbu
Body Photo by The New York Public Library